I I I

SICIIan
an

by John Emms

EVERYMAN CHESS
Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com
First published in 2002 by Everyman Publishers plc, formerly Cadogan Books plc,
Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright© 2002 John Emms

The right of John Emms to be identified as the author of this work has been as­
serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue.record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 302 0

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man­
sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: dan@everyman. uk.com
website: www.everyman.uk.com

To Daniel

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
Everyman Chess

Popular opening books:

1 85744 2 1 8 0 Unusual QG Declined Chris Ward

1 85744 253 9 Alekhine's Defence Nigel Davies
1 85744 256 4 Queen's Gambit Declined Matthew Sadler
1 85744 232 6 French Classical Byron Jacobs
1 85744 281 4 Modern Defence Speelman & McDonald
1 85744 292 X Symmetrical English David Cummings
1 85744 290 3 c3 Sicilian Joe Gallagher
1 85744 242 3 Offbeat Spanish Glenn Flear
1 85744 262 8 Classical Nimzo-Indian Bogdan Lalic
1 85744 291 1 Sicilian Grand Prix Attack James Plaskett
1 85744 252 0 Dutch Stonewall Jacob Aagaard
1 85744 257 1 Sicilian Kalashnikov Pinski & Aagaard
1 85744 276 8 French Winawer Neil McDonald

Books for players serious about improving their game:

1 85744 226 1 Starting Out in Chess Byron Jacobs

1 85744 231 8 Tips for Young Players Matthew Sadler
1 85744 236 9 Improve Your Opening Play Chris Ward
1 85744 241 5 Improve Your Middlegame Play Andrew Kinsman
1 85744 246 6 Improve Your Endgame Play Glenn Flear
1 85744 223 7 Mastering the Opening Byron Jacobs
1 85744 228 8 Mastering the Middlegame Angus Dunnington
1 85744 233 4 Mastering the Endgame Glenn Flear
1 85744 238 5 Simple Chess John Emms

Books for the more advanced player:

1 85744 233 4 Attacking with 1 e4 John Emms

1 85744 233 4 Attacking with 1 d4 Angus Dunnington
1 85744 219 9 Meeting 1 e4 Alexander Raetsky
1 85744 224 5 Meeting 1 d4 Aagaard and Lund
1 85744 273 3 Excelling at Chess Jacob Aagaard
 I I I

SICIIan
an

by John Emms

EVERYMAN CHESS
Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com
 CONTENTS I

Bibliography 6
Preface 7
Introduction 9

1 e4 c5 2 l2lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2lxd4 a6

5 �d3

1 5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 'f!ic7 7 'ii'e2 d6 12

2 5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 'flic7: Seventh move alternatives 46
3 5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 d6 60
4 5 �d3 .tc5 82
5 5 .td3: Fifth move alternatives for Black 112

5li:lc3

6 5 l2lc3 -vJ1c7 129

7 5 ltJc3 b5 6 �d3 'i'b6!? 156
8 5 l2lc3 b5: Sixth move alternatives 173

5 c4

9 5 c4 182

Index of Complete Games 191

I BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books
Enryclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B, 3rd Edition (Sahovski Informator 1997)
Enryclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B, 4th Edition (Sahovski Informator 2002)
Nunn's Chess Openings, John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms and Joe Gallagher (Every­
man/Gambit 1999)
Siiflianisch im Geiste des !gels, Frank Zeller (Schachverlag Kania 2000)
Winning with the Kan, Ali Mortazavi (Batsford 1996)
Trends in the Paulsen VoL 2, John Emms (Trends 1997)
Beating the Sicilian 3, John Nunn and Joe Gallagher (Batsford 1995)

Periodicals
Chess Informants 1-84
The Week in Chess 1-405
Chesspublishing.com

Databases
Mega Database 2002
Mega Corr 2
 PREFACE I
This book is a study of the Sicilian Kan (1
e4 cS 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4), an ideal
opening for those playing Black who wish
to learn the intricacies of the ever popular
Sicilian Defence. I've been looking forward
to writing this book for a long time. The
Kan was the first Sicilian variation I learned
to play and, because of this, I've always had
a soft spot for it.
I first became aware of its potential as a
possible defence for Black in a typical fash­
ion: struggling to find an advantage against
it with the white pieces! From the start I
was very much struck by its flexibility and
simplicity. A major selling point, which
cannot be overstressed, is that the Kan is
one of the easiest variations of the Sicilian
to learn. Unlike some more high profile
lines I could mention (the Dragon, the Na­
jdorf and the Sveshnikov), the onus is not
on the player with the black pieces to
memorise reams of opening theory simply
to stay on the board. Of course Black still
has to play good moves (!), but is much less
likely to be at a disadvantage simply down
to a memory loss. The Kan is more of a
'system' in that Black tends to react similarly
regardless of how White plays it.
This brings us to another positive fea­
ture; how does White play it? When I began
to use the Kan as my main weapon against
1 e4 I was struck by the number of strong
and experienced white players who would
become flummoxed and slump into deep
thought early on. My basic theory is that the
majority of those playing open Sicilians
have budgeted just enough time to study the
ins and outs of the 'trendy' Dragon, Najdorf
and Sveshnikov, leaving them a little short
against the 'less fashionable' lines.
So who plays the Kan? Going back to
the 1970s you would find games from the
likes of Karpov, Petrosian, Portisch, Miles,
Andersson, Hubner, Ljubojevic and Gheor­
ghiu. Of the new generation of top class
players, there are games by Ivanchuk, Ru­
blevsky, Smirin and Judit Polgar, while Kas­
parov and Kramnik have also used it
occasionally. Other players who have con­
tributed to its theory include Bologan, Vyz­
manavin, Milov, Epishin, Eingorn, Kengis,
Landa, Ilya Gurevich, Miezis, Movsesian,
Romanishin, Farago, etc. I could go on but
there's enough quality on display there to
dispel any doubts about the soundness of
the defence.
To what type of player does the Kan es­
pecially appeal? Anyone who believes that
Black's sound Sicilian structure can over­
come White's early initiative. For a Sicilian,
7
Sicilian K a n
there is relatively little theory and still much
uncharted territory. For example, a few
years ago a new move was discovered for
Black which has completely altered how a
particularly important line was perceived.
And when does this idea occur? As early as
move six! The Kan is more likely to appeal
to a player who is keen to think for himself
from an early stage, rather than one who is
reliant on the comfort zone twenty or so
moves of solid theory. To this I would add
to this that the Kan player generally plays
on the counter-attack and that patie-nce,
especially in certain variations, is a very use­
ful quality.
Despite my fondness for the Kan, I've
endeavoured to produce a balanced and
objective study of the variation. This is not
intended as an ail-in-one repertoire book
and it's not filled with ninety-nine per cent
of black wins! My idea was to include both
the popular and the less fashionable lines,
recommending variations for both colours
where it's merited. In general the results of
the games I've selected reflect the success
rate of the lines at grandmaster level. This is
not to say, however, that they produce simi­
lar results at lower levels.
I've assumed that the reader doesn't have
access to other material on the Kan in such
publications as ChessBase Maga'.{jne, Infonnator
and ChessPublishing.com and I've collected
and checked relevant analysis and assess­
ments from these sources. I've also endeav­
oured to attribute such analysis and assess­
ments correctly, except perhaps when they
have been blindingly obvious. Naturally I
have been assisted in my task of checking
and providing new analysis by various com­
puter engines - it would be reckless to con­
sider writing certain chess books these days
without one. Computers do have some
weaknesses but they are excellent at both
checking analysis and prompting the author
to consider unusual (or sometimes blatantly
obvious) ideas. Virtually all the world's top
8
players study openings with the aid of com­
puters and many of the major opening nov­
elties over the last few years have been
computer inspired.
I decided on using illustrative games in­
stead of the traditional method of variation
trees. In this particular instance, with both
White and Black having such a free rein
regarding move orders and with both sides
employing 'systems' rather than just
'moves', it's easy to see that illustrative
games have a major advantage. I will, how­
ever, be concentrating mainly on the open­
ing moves . and the early middlegame plans
and tactics, and will only linger on the later
parts of the games if they have characteristic
'Kan' qualities or if they are of particular
interest. To provide as much useful infor­
mation as possible, I have forced myself to
be quite ruthless about this. Once you be­
come involved in studying a particular
game, it's all too easy to be seduced by all
the tactics of the late middlegame and end­
game, even if they have nothing to do with
the actual opening. Before you know it, a
game covering one small sideline turns into
a ten-page epic! I have deliberately fought
against this; this is first and foremost a book
on the K.an, not a games selection.
Except for a brief explanation in the in­
troduction, I will be dealing with the various
positional and tactical ideas for both players
as they occur in the games, rather than sepa­
rately. I've found that some games have
come out as a labyrinth of difficult tactical
variations, while others much more posi­
tional and wordy; that's the way it is with
the Sicilian.
Many thanks go to Byron Jacobs and
Dan Addelman for their patience and ex­
tended deadlines, and to Christine for her
support and proof-reading.
John Emms,
Kent,
September 2002
 INTRODUCTION
Let's begin by taking a look at the initial
moves of the Kan.
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 a6
Black's fourth move underlines the un­
doubted flexibiliry of the Kan. Black waits
for White to commit himself before decid­
ing where to develop his pieces. The advan­
tage is that Black has more 'information' to
go on before deciding what set-up to use.
The disadvantage is that White also has
more options at his disposal. More specifi­
cally, White can choose if he wishes to erect
the 'Maroczy Bind' with an early c2-c4 (this
is avoided by Black in many other Sicilian
defences by the insertion of an early ...l2:\f6,
inducing White to play l2:\c3) .
Onto the actual attributes of the move
I
4 ... a6. In some ways it could be construed as
a 'high-class' waiting move, but it does have
positive features relevant to the position.
Firstly, it protects the bS-square and thus
rules out any early lbbS by White. This is
particularly important because 2 ... e6 weak­
ens the d6-square, while Black also often
plays his queen to c7 at an early stage. An­
other positive feature of ... a7 -a6 is that it
can support the rypical Sicilian lunge ... b7-
b5, which Black may play as early as move
five! This strike on the queenside is nor­
mally much more e ffective if White plays an
early l2:\c3, as then a timely ...b5-b4 forces
the knight to move again. This can be im­
portant as often Black bases his counterplay
on attacking White's very slightly vulnerable
e4-pawn and the knight on c3 is a natural
defender of this pawn.
Kan/Paulsen/Taimanov
There has often been some confusion when
chess players talk about these openings. The
subject of this book is the Kan Variation (1
e4 cS 2 l2:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6) .
However, in the past this move order has
also been referred to as the Paulsen Varia­
tion. Indeed, at my editor's insistence, my
1997 booklet on this line was entitled Trends
in the Paulsen Volume 2. Looking at other
9
Sic ilia n Ka n
literature, The Oxford Companion to Chess, a
good guide, calls it the Paulsen but does
mention that it can be called the K.an too.
More recently people have come to accept
the Kan as the main name, but of course it's
how well you play it that really matters!
In most circles, the very similar variation
1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tbc6 is
known as the Sicilian Taimanov (although
just to confuse things this line is also some­
times referred to as the Paulsen!). Naturally
the Kan can transpose into the Taim.anov
and vice versa. The concept that really sepa­
rates the two openings is that in the K.an
Black either delays or forgoes the move
...tbc6 unless it is really beneficial. In this
book, on the whole, we will be concentrat­
ing on pure 'Kan' positions and so we will
see more of ...t2Jbd7 than of ...t2Jc6.
Maroczy Bind versus the Hedgehog
The diagram above shows White with
employing the so-called 'Maroczy Bind', a
structure which dominates the first few
chapters of this book. The prongs on c4
and e4 promise a pleasant space advantage
for the first player. Furthermore, Black's
important Sicilian pawn break in the centre
with ... d6-d5 is now very difficult to achieve,
while ...b7-b5, another typical Sicilian lunge,
is also prevented for a very long time. It was
once thought that this type of pawn struc­
ture promised White a clear or even decisive
10
advantage, but i n the 1970s many top
grandmasters, including the likes of Ulf
Andersson and Ljubomir Ljubojevic, dis­
covered many new defensive resources for
Black and these are seen throughout the
book. It was shown that Black's 'Hedgehog'
pawn structure (e6, d6, b6 and a6) is in fact
very difficult to break down. Furthermore,
Black's structure is very flexible and White
sometimes has to use a lot of piece power
ensuring that Black cannot break with either
...dS or ...bS. Finally, White has chances to
attack on the kingside, in the centre and on
the queenside but must be very careful not
to overextend himself in doing so, other­
wise he runs the risk of being impaled on
one of those Hedgehog's spikes! It's true to
say that those playing White, as well as
those with Black, need a lot of patience to
play these positions.
Scheveningen Structure
Later in the book we deal with a similar
pawn structure but with a subtle difference.
In the diagram above White's c-pawn is
back on c2, normally blocked by a knight on
c3. This is known as the Scheveningen
structure (the Scheveningen Variation arises
after 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4
t2Jf6 5 tbc3 e6). Purely from a structural
point of view, the Scheveningen structure is
less advantageous for White than the Ma­
roczy Bind (some would say it's actually

advantageous to Black). The point is that
there is now much less to prevent Black
both advancing in the centre with ... d6-d5
and expanding on the queenside with ... b7-
b5. White can use some method of con­
tainment (with a2-a4, for example) but gen­
erally this is not his main aim.
The advantage White has here over the
Maroczy Bind is one of time. By missing
out c2-c4 White gains an extra tempo and in
open Sicilian positions a tempo is often the
difference between success and failure.
Generally White will try to use this extra
time to generate a quick attack against the
black kingside. Talking simply of pawn
moves, this will normally involve the ad­
vance f2-f4, after which Black has to con­
stantly be on guard over f4-f5 and e4-e5
advances. Sometimes White also throws in
g2-g4-g5 for good measure. Of course these
plans are also possible in Maroczy Bind
positions, but in Scheveningen positions
they are really crucial to the success of the
white player. Many games follow the same
formula: either White wins in barnstorming
fashion in under thirty moves, or Black sur­
vives the onslaught and later on feasts on
the remains of White's overextended posi­
tion.
Intro duction
Chapter Order
Chapters 1 -5 deal with 5 .id3. This solid
move continues to be by far the most popu­
lar choice against the Kan. The chief posi­
tive feature of 5 .id3 is its flexibility. White
keeps the option open of erecting the Ma­
roczy Bind with c2-c4, as well as simply
forgoing this in favour of lLlc3. Perhaps the
only disadvantage of 5 .id3 is that Black
has so many different responses at his dis­
posal, so the white players needs to be well
booked up. Possible black responses include
5 ...lLlf6, 5 ... .ic5, 5 ...'ir'c7, 5 ...'ir'b6, 5 ...g6,
5 ...lbc6, 5 ...lbe7, 5 ... d5. The list goes on and
on!
Chapters 6-8 deal with the more tactical
5 lLlc3, immediately reaching the
Scheveningen structure. Black has fewer
choices here, the main 'Kan' responses be­
ing 5 ...'ir'c7 and 5 ... b5.
Finally, in Chapter 9 we deal with 5 c4,
whereby White immediately sets up the
Maroczy Bind. You would think that this
'no-nonsense' move would be popular, but
in fact the reverse is true and it's actually
much less common than both 5 .id3 and 5
lbc3. The main reason for this is that Black
has many more options than simply to ac­
cept a Hedgehog structure.
11
 CHAPTER ONE I
5 i.d3 '2Jf6 6 0-0 'Wic7
7 'Wie2 d6

1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6 tively (perhaps a t c5 o r even d6), instead of

5 .id3 lt:lt6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 boxing it in with the move 6... d6 (sec Chap­
In this chapter we will be dealing with ter 3).
what is generally known as 'the main line' of
the Kan. Let's begin by considering the
opening few moves.
1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6
5 .id3 lt:lf6
5.. /2Jf6 is by far the most popular move.
Black develops his king's knight and pre­
pares to castle. Alternatives to 5...4Jf6 will
be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
6 0-0
Moving the king into safety. It's ex­
tremely uncommon for White to castle
queenside in the 5 .td3 variations of the
Kan so there is no particular advantage in 7 �e2!
delaying castling. For alternatives, however, This clever move is again the most popu­
see Chapter 3. I will mention here that 6 eS? lar choice for White. He renews the 'threat'
loses a pawn to 6...'it'a5+!. of e4-e5 and keeps his options open regard­
6 . . . 'iic 7 ing pawn structure. There are, however,
This little queen move is the subject of quite a few alternatives (including the im­
the first two chapters. Black takes control mediate 7 c4) and these are discussed in
over the long b8-h2 diagonal and protects Chapter 2.
the crucial e5-square - White was already 7 . . . d6
threatening e4-e5. The queen also keeps an On first sight this looks a little inconsis­
eye on events down the c-file and directly tent with Black's previous move as the f8-
attacks White's c-pawn, which normally bishop is now blocked anyway. However,
ends up on c4. For the moment Black keeps most Kan players are loath to allow White
the option of developing his f8-bishop ac- to play an early e4-e5, dislodging the impor-

12

tant defensive knight on f6. Alternatives,
including 7...i.c5 and 7....td6 are studied in
Chapter 2.
8 c4
With this move White sets up the Ma­
roczy Bind.
8 tLlc3 leads to positions discussed in
Chapter 6, while also important is the ag­
gressive 8 f4 (see Game 13).
8 . . . g6
The idea of fianchettoing the king's
bishop in this line was discovered in the
1980s as a way of strengthening Black's
kingside in anticipation of a white offensive
in that area, and 8...g6 is now Black's most
popular response to 8 c4.
Classical development with 8...i.e7 is the
traditional way of playing the Hedgehog and
is discussed in Games 9-11, while 8...tt:Jbd7,
leaving the option open as to where to de­
velop the dark-squared bishop, is the sub­
ject of Game 12.
9 t:Dc3
White continues to develop naturally. In
most cases the knight's best square is c3,
from where it keeps an eye on the critical
bS- and ciS-squares. However, White can
also contest the long diagonal by fianchetto­
ing his own dark-squared bishop with 9 b3
(see Game 8).
9 . iig7 1 0 l:!.d1
. .
The plan beginning with this move was
quickly installed as the critical way to com-
5 ii d3 t:Dt6 6 0 - 0 'IWc 7 7 '1We2 d 6
bat Black's fianchetto. The bishop o n g7
provides an excellent shield for the black
king but, as opposed to when the bishop is
developed on e7, it doesn't protect the
slighdy vulnerable d6-pawn. White immedi­
ately makes this his main target by posting a
rook on the half-open d-fi.le.
10 tt:Jf3 can simply transpose into the
main line after 10...0-0 but White docs have
some tricky move order options: 11 i.f4
tbc6 (11...tLlbd7 12 l::tacl!? tLlg4 13 l::tfdl
transposes to the note to Black's 12th move
in Game 5 without allowing the possibility
of what Kobalija played against Adams) 12
h3 (12 l::tfd1 transposes to Game 4)
12...tLld7 13 l::tacl tt:JccS 14 lLlxeS tLlxeS 15
l::tfd1 and we have reached a position from
Game 3.
White certainly has other plans, including
a quick kingside attack involving the lunge
f2-f4 (discussed in Game 7). Another, more
positional, idea is to bolster the e4-pawn
with f2-f3 and aim for a gradual attack on
the qucenside (see Game 6).
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 t:Df3
Continuing the basic plan. White clears
wood from the d-fi.le and in some cases
prepares to add pressure to d6 with i.f4
(note that the immediate 11 .tf4? would
simply lose a piece after 11...e5!). The stage
is set for a complex positional battle. Move
sequences, ideas and tactics from this posi­
tion are covered in Games 1-5.
13
Sicilian Kan
Game l
Z .Aimasi-Farago
Linz 1995
1 e4 c5 2 lUt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tUxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 ttJt6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 lUc3 .i.g7 1 0 �d 1 0-0 1 1 ttJt3 ttJc6
1t...tt::lbd7 is also possible (see Game 5)
but I believe that 1t...tt::lc6 gives Black more
options, especially against 12 �f4 (see
Game 4).
1 2 h3
This refinement was introduced after
black players found a good way of combat­
ing the previously popular 12 .tf4 (see
Game 4). With 12 h3 White doesn't rush
the bishop to f4. He reasons that with a
black knight probably on its way to eS, the
bishop will be blocked on f4 and may be
more happy on e3, at least for the time be-
ing. Instead White cuts out both ...tt::l g4 and,
if Black plays...e6-e5, the idea of ...�g4.
1 2 . . . b6
So that Black can develop his light­
squared bishop on b7. Black normally plays
12...tt::ld7 13 �e3 and only then 13...b6 (or
13...tt::lde5 - see Game 2), reaching the same
position as in the text. The move order cho­
sen here can only make a difference if
White decides to play 13 �f4 (see Game 3),
in which case Black is already committed to
playing ...b7-b6.
14
1 3 .i.e3
13 �f4 tt::ld7 transposes to the note to
Black's 13th move in Game 3.
1 3 . . . tiJd7
Black now has many options with his
knights, including ...ltJcS, ...tt::lceS and
...tt::ldeS.
1 4.li!.ac1 ttJc5
14...tt::lce5?! is a typical move in this type
of position but in this instance, with White's
bishop on e3, it leaves Black struggling to
cover all his weaknesses: 15 tt::lxeS and now:
a) 15...dxe5?! has been played here and in
similar positions but I don't like this move
at all.
Black has voluntarily blocked his own
dark-squared bishop and has presented
White with a dangerous queenside pawn
majority which can be galvanised immedi­
ately with 16 b4!, intending c4-c5. In gen­
eral, the only time Black can justify playing
... dxeS is if there is a knight on c6 ready to
jump into the newly-acquired d4 outpost
(see Game 2).
b) 15... tt::lxe5 16 b3 �b7 17 �b1 l:tfd8
(17 ...�ab8 18 f4 tt::lc6 19 �d2 �fd8 20 �f2
reaches the same conclusion, while
17....l:ife8 18 �d2 �f8 19 tt::la4 tt::ld7 20
tt::lxb6! tt::lxb6 21 �aS tt::ldS 22 l:txdS! left
White a clear pawn up in Luther-Von
Gleich, Bonn 1993) 18 �d2! (Von Gleich)
18....Uab8 (18...�£8 19 tt::la4 tt::ld7 [Z.Alrnasi­
Vogt, Altensteig 1993] 20 tt::lxb6! wins a

pawn in a similar fashion) 19 f4 lL'lc6 20
�f2 i.a8 21 ltJa4 and the b-pawn drops off
the board.
14...ltJde5?! allows the tactic 15 ltJd5!
(Black always has to be wary of this idea and
a similar one with ltJb5) 15...exd5 16 cxd5
and the pin on the c-ftle allows White to
regain his piece with interest, for example
16...lL'lxf3+ 17 �xf3 lL'le5 18 l:Ixc7 lL'lxf3+
19 gxf3 i.xh3 20 �h2 i.c8 21 b4 b5 22
..if4 and Black is struggling in this ending.
14...i.b7 15 ..ib1 lDc5 transposes to the
main line.
1 5 i.. b 1
A typical move for this line. The bishop
vacates the d-ftle (so that the d6-pawn feels
the full effect of the rook on d1), while
keeping an eye on the slightly vulnerable e4-
pawn. The move ..ib1 is favoured over i.c2
because on b1 the bishop is out of harm's
way and blocks neither rook.
1 5 . . . i.. b 7
1 6 �d2!
A good all-purpose move. White both
threatens d6 and sets up the possibility of
exchanging dark-squared bishops with ..ih6.
However, White does have alternatives:
a) 16 a3!? prepares to chase the knight
away with b2-b4 but allows the black knight
to settle after 16...lL'lb3 17 l:lc2 and now it's
a case of whether the knight on b3 proves
to be a nuisance for White or a liability for
Black (or perhaps both):
5 i.. d3 li:Jf6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 �e2 d6
a1) 17...ltJe5 18 ..ia2 ltJc5!? (18...lL'lxf3+
19 gxf3! lL'lc5 20 �d2 ..ie5 21 b4 lL'ld7 22 f4
..ixc3 23 l:lxc3 lL'lf6 24 f3 ..ixe4 25 fxe4
lL'lxe4 26 �d3 lL'lxc3 27 �xc3 e5 was agreed
drawn in Tsuboi-Urday Caceres, Sao Paulo
1998, but I like White's bishop pair in the
final position) 19 lL'lxe5 ..ixe5 20 ..id4
..ixd4 (20....:.fd8 21 b4 lL'ld7 22 ..ixe5 lDxe5
23 f4 ltJd7 24 l:Icd2 looks a bit better for
White) 21 l:lxd4 e5! 22 l:td1 lL'le6 23 �e3
lL'ld4 24 .l:tcd2 .Uad8 25 lL'le2 lL'lxe2+ 26
�xe2 ..ic8! and Black will equalise with
.....ie6.
a2) 17...lL'lca5 18 ..ia2 l:tac8 19 ltJd4
..ixd4 20 i.xd4 e5!? (20...ltJxd4 21 l:lxd4 is
a touch better for White - d6 is more vul­
nerable than c4) 21 ..ie3 b5 and now in­
stead of 22 �f3 f5!, which was very unclear
in Luther-Mattick, Seefeld 1996, White
should play 22 cxb5! .i.xe4 23 b6 �c6 24
b7 �xb7 25 lL'lxe4 'it'xe4 26l:Ixc8l:Ixc8 27
'ii'xa6, when Black's in serious trouble.
b) 16 b3 is a solid move, lending extra
support to the c4-pawn before commencing
further operations. In the game Kersten­
Chuchelov, Willingen 1999, Black suc­
ceeded in achieving a reasonable position
after 16...�e7 17 �d2 nfd8 18 lL'ld4 lDe5!
(as is so often the case in hedgehog posi­
tions, the weakness of d6 becomes more
prominent as pieces are exchanged; hence
Black's reluctance) 19 ..ig5 f6! 20 ..ie3 g5.
Black still has weak pawns but his two
knights have acquired excellent outposts
and neither can be removed without White
creating weaknesses in his own camp.
16 . . . �ad8 1 7 b3
Again a useful move - White gives the
c4-pawn some protection. However, this is
hardly life threatening for Black and so it's
unsurprising that White has also tried more
direct methods.
a) 17 i.h6 f5! is a suggestion of Istvan
Almasi and I believe that this is the way that
Black should treat this position. With both
...b6-b5 and ...d6-d5 looking extremely un-
15
Sic ilia n Kan
unlikely in the short term, the ... f7-f5 lunge
is Black's only realistic pawn break. Of
course there is always some risk advancing
pawns in front of your king, but in this case
this is counterbalanced by the activity it
gives to the black position. Instead 17...lbe5
18 ..i.xg7 lbxf3+ 19 gxf3 �xg7 20 b4 lbd7
21 ifxd6 'ir'xc4 22 ..i.d3 'ir'c8 23 lba4 was
better for White in Lane-Chuchelov, Ant­
werp 1999.
b) 17 lDh2 (planning lDh2-g4) 17...'i!fe7
18 lbe2?! (18 ..i.h6 is stronger, when I still
like 18...f5) 18...a5 19 b3 lbb4! 20 lbc3 dS!
and Black, having achieved the desirable
...d6-d5 break, took over the initiative in
Van den Doel-Shaked, Wijk aan Zee 1998.
c) The more I look at 17 lDdS!, the more
I like it. It's the sort of move which should
always be considered, even with Black hav­
ing an extra knight blocking the c-ftle:
17...exdS 18 cxdS (White regains his
piece as if the c6-knight moves White plays
b2-b4) 18...lbe5 (18...l::tfe8 19 dxc6 ..i.xc6 20
i.d4 looks uncomfortable for Black) 19
lDxeS ..txeS 20 b4 1fe7 21 bxcS bxcS 22
..igS ..tf6 23 ..txf6 ifxf6 24 f4 and White's
pawn centre promises him an edge. If Black
has no improvement here then there is cer­
tainly a case for 17 lbdS over 17 b3.
1 7 .'i'b8?
. .
Black defuses lDdS ideas and prepares
.....i.a8 and ...b6-b5. However, Alrnasi's sub­
sequent play casts doubt upon the wisdom
16
of removing the queen from the action and
it's here that Black should be looking for
improvements.
a) Another more recent game involving
Ivan Farago saw the Hungarian GM trying
the slightly clumsy-looking manoeuvre
17.....ta8 18 lbh2 (18 lbdS is again possible
although on this occasion Black is not
forced to caprure) 18...1fb7!?, once again
angling for ...b6-b5. However, at least in this
instance the queen still covers the second
rank and the advantage of this can be seen
in the sequence 19 i.h6 fS, when Black is
not forced to recaprure on g7 with the king.
Instead the game Graetz-Farago, Latschach
2001 continued 19 1fe2 fS! 20 f3 (20 exfS?
allows Black to demonstrate another point
of ....i.a8 and ...1Vb7: 20.....txc3! 21 lhc3
lbd4 22 'ir'g4 lbe2+ and Black wins) 20...f4
and Black had gained some useful space on
the kingside, while securing eS as an out­
post.
b) The immediate 17...f5!? looks to me
like the most consistent continuation (Zeller
also mentions this move).
Black immediately strives for counterplay
with this logical move, for example:
b1) 18 lbd4?? loses material to 18...f4!.
b2) 18 lDdS isn't so effective now. After
18...exd5 19 cxdS Black has the choice of
two ways to play it: 19...lbe7 20 b4 fxe4 21
i.xe4 lbxe4 22 l::txc7 lbxd2 23 lbxd2 ltJxdS
24 l::txb7 l::tfl with an equal ending, or

19...lDe5 20 lDxeS dxeS 21 b4 f4 22 i-xcS
bxcS 23 bxcS nf6 which is difficult to as­
sess. In this second line I think I would
prefer to play the black side - at least he will
probably have the option of returning the
piece for White's two dangerous passed
pawns.
b3) 18 exfS lDeS!? (18...gxf5 19 i-gS �d7
[19...i-f6!?) 20 %:te1 lDeS also looks okay for
Black) 19 lDd4 (or 19 lDxeS dxeS 20 'ir'e2
gxfS and Black has a strong-looking pawn
centre) 19...gxf5 and Black can even con­
sider following up with the aggressive
...�f6-g6. Critical now is 20 b4 'ir'f7! 21 i.gS
lid7 22 'ir'e2 lDe4 but Black looks to be
okay in these complications.
1 8 .i.h6!
A very natural move, underlining Black's
weaknesses on the dark squares. This idea
has increased in strength now that the black
queen finds herself further away from the
action.
1 8 . . . i.a8
Istvan Almasi suggests 18...-ic8 as an
improvement, but I don't really see how this
helps that much after 19 lDh2.
1 9 0,h2!
An excellent idea. The knight plans to
hop into g4, where it highlights Black's
dark-squared problems.
1 9 . . . f6
19...b5 amounts to nothing more than a
demonstration on the queenside. After 20
i-xg7 �xg7 21 cxbS axbS 22 b4 Black's
weaknesses (bS, d6, f6 and h6) will become
very difficult to defend.
I would still be tempted to play 19...f5!?,
if nothing else to stop lDg4, although I do
admit this is not consistent with Black's
previous play.
20 .i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 0,g4 0,e5 22 b4
0,xg4 23 hxg4
White has triumphed in the middlegame
batde and has acquired a virtually winning
game. Black's position is full of weaknesses
and he has no real counterplay.
5 i. d3 0, (6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6
2 3 . . . 0,d7
The only way to hang on to the d6-pawn
was to play the extremely ugly 23...l2Jb7 but
unsurprisingly Farago could not bring him­
self to play like this!
24 �xd6 0,e5 25 �xb8 l:!.xb8 26 0,e2
l:!.fd8 27 0,d4 �f7 28 f3 l:!.d7 29 0,b3
l:txd 1 + 30 l:!.xd1 0,xc4 31 l:!.d7 + �e8
32 l:!.xh7 l:!.d8 33 l:!.h8 + �d7 34 l:!.xd8 +
�xd8 35 i.d3 0,a3 36 e5?
I don't understand this move at all. Why
allow Black's terrible bishop on a8 back into
the game? 36 �£2 (I. Almasi) keeps total
control.
36 . . . fxe5 37 .i.xg6 e4!
Black seizes his chance and reaches a
drawn ending.
38 fxe4 0,c2 39 b5 axb5 40 e5 0,e3 41
g5 0,c4! 42 .i.d3 0,xe5 43 .i.xb5 �e7
Y,-Y,
Game 2
Z .Aimasi-Anand
FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997
1 e4 c5 2 0,t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6
5 i.d3 0,t6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 0,c3 ..ig7 1 0 l:!.d1 0-0 1 1 0,t3 0,c6
1 2 h3 0,d7 1 3 i.e3
13 i-f4 transposes to Game 3.
1 3 . . . 0,de5 14 l:!.ac1 i.d7!
This deployment goes well with playing
...ttJdeS. When compared to 14...b6?!, this
17
Sicilian Kan
set-up leaves Black much better placed to
cope withlLldS ideas.
1 5 lt:\xe5
With this move White clarifies the posi­
tion in the centre, but there are some play­
able alternatives:
a) 15 b3!? lLlxB+ (15... f5 16lLlxe5lLlxe5
17 f4lLlfl looks like a better bet) 16lixB
liaS gives Black reasonable counterplay
according to Almasi, but I suspect that after
17 .id2 White still has an edge, for example
17...f5?! 1S exfSlLleS (1S...gxf5 19lig3) 19
lig3lLlxd3 20lixd3lixfS 21 �xfS gxfS 22
.if4!.
b) 15lLle1 tries to avoid an exchange of
knights, but this looks too artificial to me:
15...f5! 16 f4 lLlfl! (a good square for the
knight; here it protects the d6-pawn) 17
exfS gxfS 1Sli£2 �acS 19 lLlBlidS 20 b3
lLle7 21 .ib1lLlg6 and Black was fine in the
game Andriulaitis-Brooks, correspondence
1999.
c) 15 ltJdS? doesn't hit the mark here as
Black has c6 well covered: 15...ltJxf3+ 16
lixf3 exdS 17 cxdS .ixb2 1S �c2 .ieS 19
dxc6 bxc6 and Black is a safe pawn up.
1 5 . . . dxe5!?
Recapturing with the pawn is much more
playable when, as on this occasion, the
knight is on c6 rather than d7 (compare
with note 'a' to Black's 14th move in Game
1). It's true that White has an active pawn
majority on the queenside but this is coun-
18
terbalanced by the fact that Black can utilise
the outpost on d4.
The alternative 15...lLlxe5!? is also not
bad: 16 f4!? (16 b3 fS transposes into note
'a' to White's 15th move) 16...lLlxd3 17
lixd3 .ic6 1S ltJdS!? (1S lixd6 lixd6 19
�xd6 .ixc3 20 �xc3 .ixe4 is equal - Ribli)
1S...exd5 19 cxdS (with an edge, according
to Ribli) 19...llfeS! (targeting e4; 19....ixb2
20 �c2 .ig7 21 dxc6 �fdS 22 lib3! looks
strong for White) 20 .id4 .ixd4+ 21lixd4
�acS and Black looks okay.
1 6 f3!
So that the queen can nudge herself to £2
and the c3-knight can contest the d4-square
from e2. The previously played 16 ltJdS
caused Black no problems after 16...exd5 17
cxdS �fdS 1S �c2 �acS, Arnason­
Vyzmanavin, Manila Olympiad 1992.
1 6 . . . lt:\d4 1 7 'i't2 i.c6 1 8 lt:\e2 .l::.f dB 1 9
lt:\xd4!
Giving Black a protected passed pawn,
but it will be well blocked and White will
have chances to use his pawns on both sides
of the board.
19 .ib 1 apparently adds more pressure
on d4, but Black can reply calmly with
19...�d7!, answering 20 lLlxd4 exd4 21
.ixd4?? with �adS (Almasi), pinning and
winning the bishop.
1 9 . . . exd4 20 i.d2
Almasi assesses this position as slightly
better for White and I agree with him.

White is threatening to expand with either
f3-f4 or b3-b4 and it's impossible for Black
to prevent both. Still, with careful defence
Black shouldn't be in too much trouble.
20 . . . e 5
O r 2 0...a 5 2 1 f4! and now ...e6-e5 i s an­
swered by f4-f5. White can slowly arrange
kingside play by re-racking his rooks on f1
and el.
21 b4!
Launching the queenside pawn majoriry
before Black has time for ...a6-a5.
2 1 . . .i.d7?!
Almasi prefers 21...ii'd7, for example 22
ii'e2 (threatening to win a piece with b4-b5)
22...b5! 23 cS ii'b7 (dissuading White from
playing a2-a4) and it is difficult to see how
White makes any real progress.
22 'ii'e 2 aS?!
And this is too panicky. Black succeeds
in splitting White's queenside but a pawn is
too high a price to pay for this.
23 bxa5 i.e6 24 �h 1 .!:!.deB 25 l:.c2 i.fB
26 .l:!.b1 ..tcs 21 'iff2 .!:!.ebB? 2B f4!
This now works due to tactical reasons.
If Black does nothing then White will push
with f4-f5. Therefore Anand opted to sacri­
fice an exchange.
2B . . . exf4 29 i.xf4 'ifxa5
Or 29....td6 30 .txd6 ii'xd6 31 cS ii'eS
32 .l:.bS! and White targets the b7 -pawn.
30 ..txbB .l:!.xbB 3 1 'ii'g 3! 'ii'd B 32 a4 b6
33 e5?
5 i. d3 0,t6 6 0 - 0 'Wif e 7 7 fie2 d6
Missing a win. Almasi gives the following
convincing analysis: 33 aS! .1d6 34 eS bxaS
35 exd6!! .l:.xb 1+ 36 'ith2 and now:
a) 36...a4 37 cS a3 38 c6 a2 39 .l:.xa2!! (but
not 39 c7? .l:.ht+! 40 'itxhl alii'+)
39 ....txa2 40 .tfS!! and White wins.
b) 36....l:.b3 37 cS with a further split:
bl) 37....tf5 38 c6! .l:.xd3 39 c7 ii'c8 (or
39 .'iVf8 40 ii'xd3 .1xd3 41 c8ii' .1xc2 42
. .
d7) 40 d7+.
b2) 37....l:.xd3 38 ii'xd3 .tfS 39 ii'd2
.1xc2 40 if'xc2 and the two connected
passed pawns are decisive.
33 . . . l:!.aB 34 .l:!.a2?!
Perhaps in time trouble, Almasi begins to
drift quite badly and soon he is worse de­
spite the material advantage.
34 . . . 'Wifd7 ! 35 aS? bxa5 36 'iff3 'ifdB! 37
.l:!.b7 .l:!.cB! 3B .l:!.f2 .l:!.c7 39 .l:!.b5 a4 40
.l:!.a5 a3 4 1 l:!.f1 l:lcB 42 .l:!.a6 'ii'e B 43
'ife4 l:.bB 44 .!:!.aS 'Wife7 45 'ii'f3 'Wifc7 46
l:tb5 'ifxe5 47 'iff6 'ii'c 7 4B l:!.a 1 .l:!.cB 49
'iff2 i.fB 50 l:lc 1 'Wifc6 0-1
Game3
Dix-Edwards
Comspondence 1993
1 e4 c5 2 {jjf 3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6
5 i.d3 {jjf6 6 0-0 'Wifc7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 B c4
g6 9 0,c3 i.g7 1 0 l:ld 1 0-0 1 1 {jjf 3 0,c6
1 2 h3 0,d7 1 3 ..tf4
The main alternative to 13 .1e3. White
19
Sicilian Ka n

adds immediate pressure to the d6-pawn the weaknesses in his position.

and induces Black to move a knight to e5.
1 3 . . . lbce5
Again Black must make the decision over
which knight, if any, should block on e5.
a) 13...b6 14 .!:tact .ib7 15 lLlb5!? (15
ltJd5 'ii'b8!; 15 b3!?) 15...axb5 16 cxb5 .l:txa2
17 bxc6 .ixc6 (Ribli), and now 18 .ixd6!
'ii'xd6 19 .ic4 is better for White.
b) 13...lL:lde5!? 14 .!:tact .id7, playing as
in the previous game, is very possible, for
example 15 b3 .l:tfc8!? (15... lL:lxf3+ 16 'ii'xf3
ltJd4 17 'ii'e3 e5 18 .ih6 .ie6 19 .ixg7
<;t>xg7 20 lLle2 lLlxe2+ 21 .ixe2 was a tiny
bit better for White in Palac-Galego, Lisbon 1 4 lbxe5
2001 but Black should still hold comforta­ It makes sense for White to clear the ten­
bly) 16 .ib1 .ie8 and now: sion in the centre before deciding what plan
b1) 17 lL\et 'ii'b8 (Black is aiming for of action to take. That said, no harm can be
...b7-b5) 18 .ig3 lL:la7! 19 f4 lLlec6 20 lLlf3 done with the flexible move order 14 .!:tact
(20 1i'd2!? .l:td8 21 .ih4 .l:td7) 20...b5 21 c5?! b6 and now:
(21 fS!? looks more threatening) 21...b4 22 a) As I mentioned before, 15 lLlxeS
cxd6?! .ixc3 23 d7 .ixd7 24 .l:txd7 lL:ld4! 25 dxe5?! works less well when Black has a
'ii'd 1 lLlxf3+ 26 gxf3 lLlb5 and Black was knight on d7 rather than c6 as White tends
doing well in Moberg-Grabliauskas, Man­ to get a free hand on the queenside
hem 1999 - White's kingside strucrure is a (15...lL:lxe5 transposes to the main game): 16
little shaky. .ie3 .ib7 17 b4! f5 18 f3 l:.f7 19 c5 bxc5 20
b2) 17 .ie3!? looks stronger as now lL:la4 fxe4 21 fxe4 .if8 22lLlxc5
17...1i'b8 18 lLlxe5 dxe5?! 19 lL:la4! exploits
the weakness of b6.
c) 13....ixc3!? is a radical idea, giving up
the dark-squared bishop in order to cripple
White's queenside pawns. However, this
concept has acquired some credibility re­
cently (it has been tried in similar positions)
and here it gives Black a playable game ac­
cording to Ernst: 14 bxc3 e5 15 .ih6 (the
dark squares around the black king are look­
ing vulnerable but it's quite difficult for
White to exploit them) 15...l:td8 16 lLlh2
lLlc5 17 .ic2 f6 18 f4 exf4 19 .ixf4 lLle5 20
lLlfl .ie6 21 lL:le3 .l:tac8 22 .l:td4 b6 and White was clearly better in Xie Jun­
Movsesian, Hastings 1996/97.
see following diagra m
b) 15 b3 .ib7 16 .ib1 with a further
with an unclear position in Kotronias­ split:
Johannessen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b1) 16... f5 17 lLlxe5! lLlxe5 transposes to
Black's well-placed knights compensate for Palac-Farago below (17...dxe5 18 .ig5 looks

20

slightly better for White - 1 8... h6 can be
answered by 1 9 'il'd2!).
b2) 16 ... ltfe8! (the importance of this
move is explained in the note to Black's
17th move) 17 lt:Jh2 (17 lt:Jxe5! lt:Jxe5 trans­
poses into the main game) 1 7 ...l:tad8 1 8
'i!i'd2 ( 1 8 i..g 5!?) 1 8. . .lt:Jc5 19 ..ig3?! f5! 20 f4
lt:Jf7 and Black had reached a very comfort­
able position in Wahls-Lau, Munich 1 992.
Note what a good job the knight does on
f7, where it defends the d6-pawn.
1 4 . . . liJxe5
14 ... dxe5?! 15 ..ie3 b6 16 ltac1 trans­
poses to Xie Jun-Movsesian above.
1 5 l:!.ac1 b6 1 6 b3 i.b7 1 7 i.b1
Another possibiliry for White is 17
'il'd2!?, planning to retreat the light-squared
bishop along the d3-f1 diagonal. This
should be seriously considered as, although
..id3-b 1 is a very popular retreat in this line,
the bishop can end up being rather passive
on this square.
1 7 . . JUe8!
An important move. Black creates the
possibiliry of a d6-defending ... ..if8, while
he also takes steps against a possible
'il'd2/..ih6 plan for White. Other ideas in­
clude:
a) 17 ...ltfd8 defends the d6-pawn but
now Black must always be wary of an an­
noying ..ig5: 1 8 'ir'd2 l:tab8 19 ..ig5! f6
(19 ...ltd7? 20 lt:Jd5! exd5 21 cxd5 lt:Jc6 22
ltc2 and Black is in big trouble) 20 ..ie3
5 i. d3 liJ f6 6 0 - 0 W c 7 7 'if e 2 d6
lt:Jf7 21 f4 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 'il'£2 ..ic6 24
i..d4 and the exchange of dark-squared
bishops favours White. Golubev-M.Ivanov,
Delzlsau 1 997 continued 24 ... ..ixd4 25
'il'xd4 lt:Jh8? 26 lt:Jd5! (again this move!)
26 ...'i!i'g7 27 'il'xg7+ �xg7 28 liJc7 and
White won a crucial pawn.
b) 1 7 ... f5 tends to work less well when a
pair of minor pieces have been exchanged -
the weaknesses on d6 and b6 are more dif­
ficult to cover: 1 8 'il'd2 ltfd8 1 9 ..ig5! ltd?
20 ..ie3 (targeting b6 now that the black
knight has lost access to d7) 20 ...ltb8 21
..id4 ltdd8 22 f4 lt:Jf7 23 ..ixg7 �xg7 24
exf5 exf5 (24...gxf5 looks more consistent,
but 25 lte1 lte8 26 'il'd4+ still looks prom­
ising for White: 26 ... e5 27 'il'£2 e4 28 lt:Jd5
i..xd5 29 cxd5 'i!i'd7 30 l1c6 and White can
eventually open Black up by arranging g2-
g4) 25 lt:Jd5 i..x d5 26 cxd5 'il'd7 27 ltc6 and
White held a clear advantage in Palac­
Farago, Oberwart 200 1 .
1 8 'ikd2 �fB 1 9 �e3
Preparing f2-f4 and hitting the b6-pawn.
If White is looking for an alternative
here, then I quite like the look of 1 9 ..ih6!?.
In general I believe that the exchange of
these bishops helps White as Black has
problems defending his dark-squared weak­
nesses. With this in mind, Black's most logi­
cal move looks to be 1 9 ... ..ie7. White can
continue in the same vein with 20 i..g5 and
now:
a) 20 ... l1ad8? 21 i..xe7 'ir'xe7 22 'ir'd4!
'il'c7 23 lt:Ja4 and White wins either the b­
or the d-pawn.
b) 20 ... f6 21 i.e3 and White will follow
up with f2-f4.
c) 20 ...i.. f8 21 f4 (21 i.. h6 repeats the po­
sition; black players would have to take this
into account) 21 ...lt:Jc6 (21 ...lt:Jd7 22 e5!
looks good for White) 22 lt:Jd5!? (22 i.. f6
also look interesting) 22...exd5 23 cxd5 'ifd7
(23 ... ltac8 24 dxc6 i.xc6 25 i.. f6 'ifb7 26
i..b2 i..g7 27 i..xg7 �xg7 28 lie 1 gives
Black problems with his d6-pawn) 24 dxc6
21
Sicilian Kan
�xc6 2S eS dS 26 l:tel and I like White's
kingside pawn majority.
Going back to Black's 1 9th move,
19 ...l:tad8 20 �xf8 l:txf8 21 f4 tt:'lc6 22
tt:'ldS!? is again promising for White. Per­
haps Black's best is 19 ... �xh6!? 20 'tixh6
and only then 20...l:tad8.
1 9 . . . .!:!.ad8
Edwards later suggested 19 ... l:tab8, with
prophylactic defence of the b6-pawn, as an
improvement. Given the position Black
eventually reaches, it's hard to be critical of
the text move.
20 f4! ?
Pushing the f-pawn down the board is
double-edged as it creates weaknesses in
White's camp. Even though it loses a tempo
over the previous note, there is still some­
thing to be said about playing 20 �h6 here.
20 . . . lLld7 21 f5 .!:!.c8
21 ...�a8 (Edwards), so that ...l:tb8 will
defend b6, is another sensible move which
may be slightly stronger than the text.
22 'ilif2 i.g7 23 .i.f4
23 tt:'la4!? is more ambitious. After
23 ... tt:'lcS (23 ... exfS!? 24 exfS tt:'lcS) 24 f6
�f8 2S tt:'lc3 tt:'ld7 26 l:tfl it's not clear
whether the pawn on f6 will turn out to be a
strength or a weakness.
23 . . . ..te5 24 .i.xe5 lLlxe5 25 lLla4 lLld7
26 'ilid2?!
White again targets the d6-pawn but
Black has some tactical resources. Probably
White should prevent Black from opening
the e-ftle with 26 fxg6 hxg6 and now 27
'tid4 tt:'lcS (27...�c6 28 tt:'lc3!) 28 lixd6
tt:'lxa4 29 bxa4 'ticS+ 30 'tixcS l:txcS 31 aS!
is better for White (3 1 ...l:txaS 32 l:td6!).
26 . . . exf5! 27 exf5 .l:!.e5!
Suddenly Black has some freedom and
his pieces soon become very active.
28 �h 1 ?
This just seems to accelerate Black's pro­
gress on the kingside. The d6-pawn cannot
be captured: 28 'tixd6?? l:tel + 29 'it£2
'tixd6 30 l:txd6 l:txcl 31 l:txd7 �c6 and
22
Black wins - Edwards. 28 l:te t looks better,
although I still prefer Black after 28 ... l:tce8
29 l:txeS dxeS 30 l:td 1 tt:'lcS 31 tt:'lxcS
'i!VxcS+ 32 lif2 e4 33 'tixcS bxcS.
28 . . ..1:!.ce8 29 lLlc3 lLlf6 30 .!:!.f1 lLlh5 3 1
fxg6 hxg6 3 2 .!:!.f2 'ilt'e7!
The balance of power has shifted very
much in Black's favour; the dark squares
around White's king are looking vulnerable
and Black's last move shows real ambition
to exploit this.
33 �g1 'i'h4 34 lLld5 b5 35 .l:!.cf1 ..txd5
36 cxd5 lLlg3 37 .l:!.d 1 lLle2 + 38 �f1
.l:!.e3!
39 .l:!.xe2
This desperate measure is forced. 39
�d3 fails to 39 ...l:txh3! 40 gxh3 'i!Vxh3+ 41
'ite1 (or 41 l:tg2 'tif3+ 42 'itel tt:'lf4+)
41...'i'ht + 42 l:tft 'i'h4+ 43 l:t£2 tt:'ld4+ 44
�e2 tt:'lf3+ 4S 'itft 'i'h1 mate.
39 . . . .l:!.xe2 40 'i'xe2 .l:!.xe2 41 �xe2
'i'h5 + 42 �e 1 'ilt'e5 + 43 �f2 'i'b2 + 44
�f3 �g7 0-1
Game4
Shaposhnikov-Karttunen
Athens 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 lLlf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 lLlc3 .i.g7 1 0 lLlf3 0-0 1 1 .i.f4 lLlc6
1 2 .l:!.fd1
Or 11 l:tdt tt:'lc6 12 �f4. This line (for-

going h2-h3) was initially White's most
popular response, but Black's next move
has been responsible for its decline. Note
that Black can also answer 12 .l:tacl with
12 ... e5, for example 13 i.e3 i.g4 14 h3
4Jd4 1 5 i.xd4 .ixf3 1 6 'ifxf3 exd4 17 4Jd5
'ifd8 with equality.
12 . . . e5!?
An amazing idea, which I believe was the
invention of Ivan Farago. At first it looks as
though Black, who is blocking in his g7-
bishop and gifting White the d5-square, is
committing positional suicide. However,
this is not the whole story. Black soon
achieves control over the d4-square, which
will be reinforced after ... i.g4. It seems that
this compensates Black fully and he has
excellent chances of equalising.
1 2...4Jd7 reaches positions similar to
ones discussed in Game 3, except that
White hasn't expended a tempo on the
'semi-useful' h2-h3. You would think that
this should be enough to sway the balance
of the position in White's favour, but it's
not so clear, for example 1 3 lhc1 4Jde5 and
now:
a) 14 b3 'ife7 1 5 i.b1
see followin g dia gram
with a further split:
a1) 1 5 ...l:tb8 1 6 Wh1 !? (or 1 6 i.e3 b6 1 7
4Jd4 4Ja7 1 8 f4 4Jd7 1 9 tLl f3 .ib7 with an
edge in Mainka-Chuchelov, Senden 1 998)
5 il.. d 3 ttJf6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d 6
1 6. . .b 6 1 7 i.g5! f6 1 8 i.e3 Wh8 1 9 4:'Jd4
4Jxd4 20 .ixd4 4Jc6 21 .ie3 f5 22 'ifd2
was better for White in Ernst-Hjartarson,
Ostersund 1 992.
a2) 15 ... .id7 16 4Je1 l:tad8 17 i.e3 f5 1 8
f4 and now, instead o f 1 8 . . .4:'Jg4 1 9 i.b6
.l:tde8 20 exf5 gxf5 21 4Jf3 which was better
for White in Hendriks-Chuchelov, Dieren
1 997, Black should play the thematic
1 8 ...4Jf7! lending support to the d6-pawn.
b) 1 4 'ife3!? and now:
b1) 14 ... 'ife7 1 5 .ie2! .id7 16 4Je1 (pre­
paring i.h6 and f2-f4; at the moment the
knight on e5 has no retreat square)
1 6 ... .l:tad8 1 7 i.h6 i.xh6 1 8 'ifxh6 g5
(18 ... f5 1 9 'ifd2 i.c8 20 f4 tLlf7 21 exf5 gxfS
22 .if3 with some advantage to White
[Milos]; note that White's light-squared
bishop is more active on f3 than it would be
on b 1) 1 9 4Jc2 f6 20 4Je3 4Jg6 21 g3 tLlce 5
22 .l:tfl and White, who prepares £2-f4,
stood better in Milos-Motwani, Manila
Olympiad 1 992.
b2) 14 ... 4Jxf3+ (it makes sense to effec­
tively gain a tempo - White has played
'ii'e2-e3xf3) 1 5 'ii'x f3 tLle5 (1 5 ...4:'Jd4 1 6
'ifg3 e 5 1 7 .ie3 .ie6 1 8 4Je2 is better for
White - Zeller) 1 6 'ifc3! (a suggestion from
Zeller; the queen is better placed on e3 than
e2 as it facilitates a possible .ih6 and allows
the light-squared bishop to retreat along the
d3-f1 diagonal) 1 6 ... .id7 (grabbing on c4
loses: 1 6 ... 4:'Jxc4? 1 7 .ixc4 'ii'xc4 1 8 .ixd6
23
Sicilian Kan
�d8 1 9 l2Jd5) 1 7 i.e2! (again it should be
said that the bishop is more active here than
on b 1) 17 ...�fc8 18 b3 i.e8 19 'il'd2 and
White maintains an edge, Gandalf 4.32g­
Nimzo 8, Cadaques 200 1 . Smooth posi­
tional play from the machine with the white
pieces!
1 3 i.e3
13 ..ig5?! ..ig4! leaves White with some
problems over the threat of ... l2Jd4. Luther­
Farago, Budapest 1991 continued 14 �acl
l2Jd4 1 5 'il'e3 .i.x£3 1 6 gx£3 h6! 1 7 i.xh6
..ixh6 18 'il'xh6 lLix£3+ 19 �g2 l2Jd4 20
lLid5 'il'd8 21 �g1 lLixd5 22 exd5 'il'f6 23
'it>fl 'il'g7 and with both a stronger minor
piece and pawn structure, Black stands very
well.
1 3 . . . i.g4!
It's unusual for this bishop to be devel­
oped on g4, but on this occasion I believe
it's mightily effective. Black begins to lay
claim to the d4-square.
1 4 ..tc2
14 h3 leads to early simplification into a
totally level position: 14 ...l2Jd4 1 5 i.xd4
exd4 1 6 l2Jd5 i.x£3 1 7 'il'x£3 1!2-1/2
Z.Almasi-Farago, Hungarian Championship
1 992.
1 4 . . . :ac8! ?
Also perfectly acceptable for Black is
14 ... l2Jd7 15 l2Jd5 'il'd8 1 6 h3 ..ix£3 17 'il'x£3
lLic5 1 8 'il'e2 lLie6 (taking complete control
over d4) 19 'il'd2 tLicd4 20 i.d3 �b8 21 f3
24
f5 with good counterplay, Stefansson-Lutz,
Manila Olympiad 1 992.
1 5 h3 i.xf3 1 6 'i'xf3 llld4 1 7 i.xd4
exd4
1 8 llle 2
18 .I:.xd4 'iVb6! hits b2 and d4, regaining
the pawn. However, this might be White's
best continuation, as in the game I believe
Black might even be slightly better when the
players agreed a draw.
1 8 . . . llld 7 1 9 lllx d4 llle 5 20 'i'e2 lllxc4
21 ..tb3 :tea 22 :ac 1 b5 23 'i'd3 Y:z-Y:z
Game 5
Adams-Kobalija
FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1999
1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lllx d4 a6
5 ..td3 lllf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 lllc3 ..tg7 1 0 lllf3 0-0 1 1 i.f4
If White chooses to play 1 1 �d1 first
then Black has to be slightly careful if he
wishes to play ...t2Jbd7 and ...l2Jg4 (although
it has to be said that this line looks good for
White in any case - see below) .
a) The immediate 1 1 ...lLibd7 can be an­
swered by 1 2 h3!?, preventing Black from
playing ...l2Jg4 and thus giving Black less
options. 12 ... b6 13 ..if4 (1 3 ..ie3!?) and
now:
a 1) 13. .. i.b7?! 14 l:tacl l2Je5 1 5 lLixe5
dxe5 16 i.e3 and Black has no compensa­
tion for White's active queenside pawn rna-

jority, Hamdouchi-L.Marin, Sitges 1 999.
a2) 1 3...ltJh5 14 ..1d2!? (preventing the
pawn-crippling ... ..ixc3; 14 ..1e3 ..1xc3 1 5
bxc3 is similar to the main game) 1 4.....1b7
1 5 l:.acl l:.ac8 1 6 b3 l:r.fe8 17 ..1e3 (17 ..ib 1
is safer) 17 ...ltJc5 1 8 ..ibt and now, instead
of 1 8 ... ..1ffi 19 ltJh2! ltJf6 20 ltJg4 ltJxg4 21
hxg4 giving White a pleasant position in
Kalod-Chuchelov, Cappelle Ia Grande 2002,
I believe Black should grab the pawn with
1 8 ... ..1xc3 1 9 l:.xc3 ltJxe4. White certainly
has compensation for the pawn, but
whether this is enough to give him the ad­
vantage is another matter.
b) t t ...ltJg4 12 ..1f4 (12 h3 ltJe5 13 ltJxe5
dxe5! and Black can follow up with ... ltJc6-
d4) 1 2...ltJd7 transposes to the note to
Black's 1 2th move.
1 1 . . . ti:Jbd7
This move used to be Black's most
popular choice but it has now been super­
seded by the more flexible 1 1...ltJc6.
Again Black can continue with 1 1 ... ltJg4
if he is worried about White preventing this
with h2-h3; 1 2 l:.fd t ltJd7 transposes into
the note to Black's twelfth move. Also pos­
sible is 1 t ...ltJh5!?, hitting f4 and c3 before
White has the chance to defend the c3-
knight with l:.ac l .
1 2 ltfd1
In his notes to this game in Informator,
Adams suggests 1 2 l:.acl !?, giving the c3-
knight some added support and thus taking
5 � d3 ti:J f6 6 0 - 0 ike 7 7 ii e 2 d6
some of the sting out of ...ltJh5.
a) 12 ... ltJg4 13 l:r.fd 1 leads to the note to
Black's 1 2th move.
b) 12 ...ltJh5 may be the best move in any
case; at least the pressure on d6 is relieved
for the time being: 1 3 ..ie3 b6 14 l:.fdl ..ib7
15 'tid2 ltJhf6!? (15 ...l:.fe8 may be more
accurate; Black can always defend with
... i.ffi) 1 6 ..1e2!? ltJxe4 (16 ... ltJe8? 1 7 b4
l:tc8 1 8 ..if4 ltJe5 1 9 ltJxe5 dxe5 20 ..1e3
again left Black with no compensation for
White's queenside advantage in Gromotka­
Podzielny, correspondence 1 996) 17 ltJxe4
..1xe4 18 'tixd6 l:.a7! and Black is just about
okay.
1 2 . ti:Jh5!?
. .
The older move is 1 2 ...ltJg4 but White
has good chances to secure an advantage
against this. The game continues with 1 3
l:tac 1 and now:
a) 13. .. ltJde5 1 4 h3 ltJxf3+ 1 5 'tixf3 ltJe5
16 'tie3 transposes to note 'b2' to Black's
twelfth move in Game 4, except that White
has the extra move h2-h3. This was already
quite pleasant for White and the extra move
is a bonus.
b) 13 ...ltJge5 14 ltJxe5 and now:
bl) 14 ... dxe5?! has been suggested in at
least one source, but I don't see the point.
After 1 5 ..1e3! Black has no active plan and
White will push on the queenside with the
b2-b4 advance; this is obviously better for
White.
b2) 1 4...ltJxe5 1 5 'tid2 l:.e8 16 ..1e2 ..iffi
(De Vreugt-Bosboom, Dieren 1 999) and
now I like 1 7 'tid4! ltJc6 18 'tie3 and Black
is under some pressure from threats of ltJa4
and c4-c5.
c) 1 3. .. b6 14 'tid2! (planning to retreat
the bishop to e2 or ft ; this plan of Lastin's
looks stronger than the previous 1 4 b3 and
1 5 ..ibl) 14 ...ltJde5 (14.....1b7 1 5 .1ft gives
Black serious problems with his d-pawn:
1 5 ... ..1xc3 16 .ttxc3 e5 1 7 'tixd6 'tixd6 1 8
l:.xd6 ltJc5 1 9 ltJxe5! ltJxe5 20 ..1xe5 ltJxe4
21 l:.xb6 ltJxc3 22 l:.xb7 is very strong) 1 5
25
Sicilian Ka n
�e2 l:td8 1 6 �g5 f6 (or 1 6 ...l:td7 1 7 lL'ld4
h6 1 8 .th4 g5 1 9 .tg3 .tb7 20 h4 gxh4 21
.txh4 Wh7 22 l2Jd5! exd5 23 cxd5 'tlib8 24
f4 'ii'g8 25 lL'lf5 1 -0 Lastin-Shaposhnikov,
Moscow 1 999) 17 lL'lxe5 lL'lxe5 18 �e3
18 ... l:.b8 19 b3 lL'lf7 20 f4 f5 21 exf5 gxf5 22
.th5! and Black has trouble developing his
c8-bishop, Lastin-Kobalija, Elista 200 1 . For
example, 22...�b7 is met by 23 'ii f2 .tc6 24
lL'ld5! (Ribli).
1 3 ..te3
13 .tg5 invites Black to do the same:
15 ... .txc3 14 bxc3 e5 15 'ii'd2 lL'lc5 1 6 .tc2
f6 17 .te3 l:td8 18 'iie 2 .te6 with an equal
position, Kulaots-J.Bellin, Gausdal 2000.
The safe 13 �d2 leads to positions simi­
lar to the those studied in note 'b' to
White's twelfth move, but White's bishop is
less active on d2 and Black has a reasonable
chance to equalise: 13 ... b6 14 !tact .tb7 1 5
�e3 ltac8 1 6 .tb1 l:tfd8 1 7 h3 'iib 8 1 8 b3
b5!, Nijboer-Bosboom, Wijk aan Zee 1 991
is another example of a successful black
strategy.
1 3 . . . ..txc3! ?
Again we meet this outwardly-shocking
idea of giving up control of the dark
squares. The compensation, as always, is the
infliction of doubled isolated c-pawns on
the white camp and the chance to find use­
ful outposts for the knights.
13 ... b6 14 !tact .tb7 transposes to note
'b' to White's twelfth move.
26
1 4 bxc3 e 5
Naturally Black attempts to regain some
control over the dark squares. Adams also
mentions the sensible-looking 1 4...b6, pre­
paring to develop the bishop on b7.
1 5 ..th6 .l:!.e8 1 6 �e3 lt:\c5 1 7 h3
Preventing ... .tg4.
1 7 . . . ..te6
17 ... .td7, preparing . . ..tc6 (Adams), may
be stronger.
1 8 ..te2 lt:\f6 1 9 lt:\d2 'it>hB
Black has completed his plan that began
with 1 3 ....txc3 and has achieved a very solid
position, despite the absence of the dark­
squared bishop. Nevertheless, White still
holds a slight edge. The problem is that,
although Black is extremely solid at the
moment, at some point the position is likely
to open up and then Black may feel the
pinch on those dark squares. This is indeed
what happens in the game.
20 ..tg5 lt:\gB 21 �g3 �c6 22 ..te3
.!:!.adS 23 .l:!.ab1 .l:!.d7 24 .U.b4 f6 25 f3
�cB 26 �f2 lt:\e7 27 lt:lb3!? lt:\xb3 28
axb3 b5 29 cxb5 a5 30 .l:!.c4! ..txc4 3 1
..txc4 d5 3 2 exd5 a 4 3 3 .i.c5 axb3 34
..txb3 lt:lf5 35 b6 �a6 36 g4 �b5 37
.l:!.b1 lt:\d6 38 ..tc2 �a6 39 .U.b4 lt:lb7? 40
..ta4 l:!.xd5 4 1 ..txeB .l:!.xc5 42 .l:!.a4! �d3
43 .l:!.aB �b 1 + 44 'it>g2 �xb6 45
..txg6 + 'it>g7 46 ..txh7 .l:!.b5 47 �xb6
.l:!.xb6 48 .i.e4 .l:!.b2 + 49 'it>g3 lt:\d6 50
.l:!.a7 + 'it>fB 51 .i.d5 .U.c2 52 .l:!.d7 1 -0

Game 6
Johnson-West
Comspondence 1997
1 e4 c5 2 &iJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 &iJxd4 a6
5 i.d3 &iJf6 6 0-0 ikc7 7 ike2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 &iJc3 i.g7 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 .l:!.ac1
&iJbd7 1 2 l:tfd1 b6
Black has the opportunity here to change
the character of the position by trading his
d7-knight for White's light-squared bishop:
1 2...tt:'!eS!? 13 f3 i.d7 14 b3 :ac8 1 S 'ii'd2
(1S i.b1 !?) 1 S ... tt:'!xd3 1 6 'lixd3 1:tfd8 1 7
tt:'!de2 tt:'!e8 1 8 'it>h 1 'ii'aS 1 9 i.d2 'lieS 20
tt:'!f4 'Wa3 21 i.e3 'WaS 22 i.d2 'lia3 23 .U.c2
bS! and Black was fine in the game Vogt­
Bischoff, Baden-Baden 1 992. Considering
the ease with which Black gains equality
here, it's surprising that this idea hasn't been
seen more often.
1 3 f3 i.b7
Here we see a totally different approach
from White, who very much adopts an
'anti-Hedgehog' formation. The first thing
to notice is White's particularly solid king­
side structure. The e4-f3-g2 pawn formation
very much blunts the power of the b7-
bishop and it's unlikely that White will be
provoked into changing this structure with­
out good reason. With his kingside well
protected, White will aim to attack Black on
the queenside. A typical and dangerous plan
5 i. d3 &iJ f6 6 0 - 0 ik c 7 7 ik e 2 d6
involves b2-b4, tt:'!d4-b3 and a2-a4-aS. With
the exchange of a-pawn for b-pawn, Black's
queenside structure is more vulnerable and
White also has a chance to create a powerful
passed pawn with c4-cS. If Black finds no
answer to this plan then his position can
soon become critical. He has to sit tight and
look for opportunities to break with either
... b6-bS or, more likely, ... d6-dS. If Black
can arrange a successful advance then usu­
ally his problems are over, but White will
not allow this to happen without a fight.
Sometimes Black even has to consider play­
ing ... d6-dS as a pawn sacrifice.
1 4 'i'f2 l:tac8 1 5 i.f1
1 4 'lif2 and 1S i.ft is typical prophylaxis
from White. The light-squared bishop
moves out of range from attack via ...tt:'!cS
or ...tt:'!eS and White removes some wood
from the d-fJ.!e, uncovering the potential of
the d 1 -rook.
1 5 . . JUe8! ?
A good square for the rook as after . . .d6-
dS the e-fJ.!e may well be opened. If Black
wishes to avoid the next note, then he can
play 1 S ...'Iib8 16 b4 and only then
1 6 ...:fe8.
Given the precariousness of Black's posi­
tion in this game, it's certainly worth explor­
ing different ways of creating counterplay
against White's super-solid structure. One
idea is 1 S ... tt:'!hS!?, for example 1 6 b4 i.eS
(with the idea of ... d6-dS) 1 7 g3 l:tfe8 18 f4
(18 tt:'!b3, keeping the pawn on f3, looks
stronger) 1 8...i.g7 and Black can be very
happy with his work. White has been lured
forward on the kingside and is now sof­
tened up along the h1 -a8 diagonal. Black's
b7 -bishop has come to life and suddenly
Black has ready-made counterplay against
c4 and e4 (Kalod-Movsesian, Zlin 1 997).
1 6 b4
Black's move order allows White the tac­
tical possibility of 1 6 tt:'!dbS!? axbS 1 7 tt:'!xbS
'Wb8 1 8 tt:'!xd6 when White will obtain a
rook and two pawns for two knights. If
27
Sicilian Kan
White can create passed pawns on the
queenside then Black may struggle, but this
is all very double-edged as Black certainly
benefits from having an extra piece in the
middlegame. The game Browne-Petrosian,
Milan 1 975 is rather unhelpful: after
1 8... .ic6 1 9 b3 .if8 20 tt'lxe8 .l:txe8 21 �d2
the players decided to call it a day. I t seems
that most white players are reluctant to re­
linquish their positional edge to reach such
an unclear position.
1 6 . . .'i'b8
Removing the queen from the c-ft!e and
thus lining up the option of ... d6-d5.
1 7 lLlbJ
White's queenside play is beginning to
look threatening. Already the b6-pawn is
attacked.
1 7 . . J:tc6 !?
'[fhis move] looks ugly (and downright
bad!) but actually it gives nothing away and
has some points that are not immediately
obvious' - Guy West. I imagine the Austra­
lian IM finally got round to this move after
discovering faults with Black's alternatives.
a) A fter 17 ....ic6 West likes the direct 1 8
cS, highlighting a problem with Black's pre­
vious move: it leaves the a-pawn unde­
fended. 1 8 ...bxc5 (or 1 8... dxc5 19 .ixa6 and
Black cannot avoid material loss) 19 bxcS
tt'lxcS 20 tt'lxcS dxcS 21 .ixa6 .l:tcd8 22
.ixcS and White is just a clear pawn up.
b) 17 ... tt'le5 1 8 tt'la4! dS 19 tt'lxb6 dxe4 20
28
tt'lxc8 .l:txc8 was a speculative exchange
sacrifice which worked in the game Kaeser­
Podzielny, Dortmund 1 992, but shouldn't
give Black enough compensation.
c) 17 ....ia8 18 cS! again looks strong.
d) 1 7 ... .if8 has been played a few times
but surprisingly I can't find any examples of
the obvious 1 8 .ixb6. West believes accept­
ing the sacrifice is critical and calls Black's
compensation 'nebulous'. I agree with him
- I don't think Black's position is strong
enough to be so bold with this sacrifice:
after 18 ... tt'lxb6 19 ifxb6 both 19 ... d5 20
exdS tt'ld7 21 'i!fd4 exdS 22 tt'lxdS and
1 9 ... .ih6 20 .l:tc2 dS 21 exdS .if4 22 g3
.ic7 23 iff2 exdS 24 cS seem to fall short
for Black.
1 8 a4
White continues with the logical plan of
a4-a5. I also think that the direct 18 tt'la4
.ia8 1 9 cS!? is worth considering: 1 9 ... b5 (or
1 9 ...bxc5 20 bxcS dxcS 21 tt'laxcS tt'lxcS 22
tt'lxcS aS 23 ife1 and Black's a-pawn will be
picked off) 20 tt'lb6 tt'lxb6 21 cxb6 .l:txct 22
.l:txcl and White's passed b-pawn looks
dangerous.
1 8 . . . d5!?
Imaginative play. With Black's rook
blocking the bishop on b7, this thematic
move looks unplayable here, but Black does
have some resources.
The continuation 1 8 ...tt'le5 19 bS .l:tcc8
20 .ixb6 tt'lxc4 21 .ia7 ifa8 22 .id4 .l:ted8
23 .ixc4 .l:txc4 24 tt'laS .l:tcc8 25 b6 .l:td7 26
�b2 tt'le8 27 .ixg7 tt'lxg7 28 eS left Black
in big trouble in Branding-Haufe, corre­
spondence 1 998.
1 9 b5!?
1 9 cxdS ('fantastically complicated' -
West) must be critical. West believes that
Black can hold the balance but keeps his
analysis to himself (and why not?): 1 9 ... exd5
20 exdS (20 tt'lxdS tt'lxdS 21 exdS .l:txcl 22
tt'lxcl 'i!fd6 and Black has typical compensa­
tion in the form of targets at dS and b4 plus
a more solid structure on the kingside; 20

b5 axb5 21 .txb5 reaches the game posi­
tion) 20 .. Jhc3!? (20 .. J:td6 21 i.f4 lt'le5 22
lt'ld2! looks good for White) 21 �xc3 lt'lg4
22 fxg4 .ixc3 looks like the most important
line. Does Black really have enough for the
pawn? I don't believe so.
1 9 . . . axb5 20 cxd5
After 20 axb5 Black can choose between
20... �d6!? and 20 ...l::tcc8 21 cxd5 exd5 22
lt'lxd5 lt'lxd5 23 cxd5 1Wd6. In the latter case
I certainly agree with West that Black has
enough counterplay. He follows up this
assessment with the line 24 i.c4? 1Wa3!,
when it is difficult to deal with the threat of
...�xc4.
20 . . . exd5 21 �xb5 dxe4! 22 tl:Jxe4!
White can grab the exchange for a pawn
with 22 .ixc6 i.xc6 but Black always has
good practical chances in this type of posi­
tion.
22 . . . tl:Jxe4 23 fxe4 tl:Je5!
Another offer of the exchange.
24 h3
Again White declines. 24 i.xc6 .ixc6
again promises Black good compensation -
both a4 and e4 are attacked while ...lt'lg4 is
also in the air.
24 . . Jbc1 25 llxc 1 :d8
Threatening to exchange knight for
bishop with ...lt'ld3. The b6-pawn remains
very weak but this is counterbalanced by the
vulnerability of the e4-pawn - the position
is more or less equal.
26 :t1 .be4 27 .txb6 :c8 28 :c 1 !
l:txc 1 + 29 tl:Jxc 1 'ikd6 % - %
Game l
Borngaesser-Lau
Essen 1996
1 e4 c5 2 tl:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl:Jxd4 a6
5 i.d3 tl:Jf6 6 0-0 'ikc7 7 fie2 d6 8 c4
g6 9 tl:Jc3 �g7 1 0 f4
Raw aggression! What happens if White
goes for glory on the kingside against
Black's solid structure? It must be said that
5 � d 3 tl:J f6 6 0 - 0 'ike 7 7 'ii e 2 d6
to many players this is an enticing strategy
but Black, with his fianchettoed bishop
providing extra cover, is ready for White to
throw in the proverbial kitchen sink.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 tl:Jf3
White retreats the knight for kingside
operations and prepares a possible e4-e5.
But what happens if White lunges forward
in 'caveman' fashion? Kan players should
not be unduly worried by such shows of
aggressiOn:
a) 1 1 e5?! is premature: 1 1 ...dxe5 12 fxe5
lt'lfd7 shows a big advantage in developing
the bishop on g7 rather than e7. Black's
kingside is rock-solid (there are certainly no
worries about threats on h7 as there would
be without ...g7-g6) . Furthermore, White's
e5-pawn is a major weakness which could
fall at any moment: 13 .if4 lt'lxe5 14 �ae1
lt'lbd7 1 5 �h 1 1Wd6 and White has run out
of good moves.
b) 1 1 f5!?, however, deserves more re­
spect. White activates the rook on f1 and
adds pressure to the e6-pawn. He docs,
though, give away the important e5-square.
White players should never give away this
square lightly as a black knight will find it to
be a wonderful outpost: 1 1 .. ..l::te 8 1 2 fxe6
fxe6 13 'iti>h 1 lt'lfd7! (heading for e5) 14 .ie3
lt'lc5 15 �acl b6 16 b3 .ib7 and the players
rather unhelpfully agreed a draw in Luther­
Kochycv, Leningrad 1 989. Black is com­
fortable in the final position. White has no
29
Sicilian Kan
entry squares on the f-Ele, the knight on e5
is a powerful beast and Black can follow up
with ...lt:Jb8-d7-c5.
1 1 . . . b6 1 2 �d2 �b7
1 3 l:tac1
A prophylactic move. White wishes to
play b2-b4 (to prevent ...lt:Jd7-c5) and thus
takes his rook off the long a 1 -h8 diagonal to
avoid tricks. More direct attempts are not
dangerous for Black.
a) 13 e5? is again too rushed and White
may simply end up a pawn down: 1 3 ...dxe5
14 fxe5 lt:Jfd7 15 if4 ..i.xf3! 16 :xf3 lt:Jc6
and Black threatens both the e5-pawn and
...lt:Jd4.
b) 13 l:he1 lt:Jbd7 14 e5?! isn't much bet­
ter: 14 ... dxe5 1 5 fxe5 lt:Jg4 16 if4 ..i.xf3 1 7
l:txf3 lt:Jgxe5 1 8 l:te3 11ad8 and White has
litde to show for his pawn.
1 3 . . . lt:lbd7 1 4 b4
14 �h 1 is a typical prophylactic move
for White in the Kan: in one go White
solves any problems with tactics involving a
check along the g 1 -a7 diagonal. Whether
this is worth expending a tempo over is a
long-running debate in many positions.
a) 14 ... l:tac8 (the traditional way) 1 5 b4
'iib 8 (vacating the c-flie and unleashing the
power of the c8-rook; Black is eyeing up
opportunities to break with either ... b6-b5
or ... d6-d5) 16 ..i.e3 'ifa8! 1 7 lt:Jd2 l:tfe8 with
a finely balanced position, Zude-Hulak,
Bundesliga 1 990. It's very difficult for White
30
to do anything constructive without allow­
ing Black to break in the centre or on the
queen side.
b) 14 .. .l:he8!? (Black counter-attacks
where White believes he is strongest - on
the kingside!) 1 5 b3 lt:Jh5! 16 l:tfe 1 (White
can push the knight back with 1 6 g4 lt:Jhf6
but it's very possible that White will later
feel the draught around his king, especially
if the a8-h1 diagonal opens up) 1 6... ..i.h6 1 7
g3 f5! 1 8 ..i.b1 lt:Jdf6 and Black's bishop on
b7 is a marvellous piece, Matulovic-Cvitan,
Yugoslav Championship 1 988.
1 4 . . . l:tac8 1 5 1Vf2
A typicai manoeuvre. White's queen is
heading for h4, where it hopes to participate
in a kingside attack.
1 5 . . . 1Vb8 1 6 1Vh4
1 6 . . . b5!
Striving for the initiative on the queen­
side. Tactics against the e4-pawn and
White's king on the long diagonal support
this lunge.
1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8 ..txb5?
White cannot resist the pawn, but after
this move his centre collapses. 1 8 i.e3
looks stronger.
1 8 . . . ..txe4! 1 9 �xd7 1Va7 + 20 Wh 1
1Vxd7
Black possesses the centre pawns and the
control they give is far more important than
any endgame potential of White's passed
pawns on the queenside. It's safe to say that

Black is already clearly better. White's next
move blunders a pawn, after which he lost
the will to continue.
21 b5? i.d3 0-1
Game 8
Short-Sax
Amsterdam 1983
1 e4 c5 2 0,t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6
5 JJ.. d 3 0,t6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4
Note that the actual move order to this
game was 8 b3 ll'lbd7 9 c4 g6 10 i.b2 ..tg7
1 1 lt:'lc3 0-0 1 2 �ad1 b6 1 3 ..tb1 i.b7 but I
have tinkered with it to include other possi­
bilities.
B . . g6 9 b3
. The 'caveman' approach is too crude to
When discussing move orders, it should
be mentioned that 9 ll'lc3 ..tg7 10 b3 is
slightly inaccurate as it gives Black the op­
tion to break with 10 ... b5!?, taking advan­
tage of the undefended c3-knight.
9 . . . JJ..g7 1 0 JJ.. b 2 0-0 1 1 0,c3
This is another popular set-up for White.
In my opinion, the fianchetto of the c l ­
bishop gives a harmonious 'feel' t o the
White position - his pieces look to be on
nice squares. White will try to attack in the
centre (pressure down the d-flie) and the
kingside. Nevertheless, Black's solid king­
side structure, aided by the fianchetto, is
well set up to oppose White's ideas. This
queenside fianchetto is more successful
5 JJ.. d3 0, (6 6 0 - 0 'i'c 7 7 'i' e 2 d 6
when employed against classical black de­
velopment (see Games 10 and 1 1 ).
Another option for White is to develop
his knight on d2: 1 1 lL'ld2 lL'lbd7 1 2 �act b6
13 �h1 ..tb7 14 ..tb1 �feB 1 5 f4 and now
1 5 ... e5! shows a disadvantage in White's
choice of square - there is no knight ready
to jump into the ourpost on d5. Gyimesi­
Farago, Pula 2000 concluded 1 6 fxe5 dxe5
17 ll'l4f3 ll'lh5 18 'ii'f2 1/2-1h. One can say
that Black is certainly not worse in the final
position.
1 1 . . .b6 1 2 :ad1
White continues to improve his pieces -
the rook can add pressure to the slightly
vulnerable d6-pawn.
succeed: 12 f4 ll'lbd7 1 3 �act i.b7 and
now:
a) 1 4 e5? dxc5 1 5 fxe5 ll'lh5 and the e­
pawn just drops off the board.
b) 14 f5?! �ae8! 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 and White
has achieved nothing except to give away
the e5-ourpost.
1 2 . . . JJ.. b 7 1 3 JJ.. b 1 0,bd7
The typical Kan move, but 13 ...ll'lc6 is
also not bad: 14 ll'lxc6 ..txc6 1 5 �d2 l:lfd8
1 6 �fd1 (Hi.ibner-Lutz, Baden-Baden 1 992)
and now Hi.ibner suggests 1 6 ...lt:'ld7!?, an­
swering 17 l:.xd6 with 17 ... ..te5.
14 �h 1
Note that the immediate advance 14 f4
should be answered by 1 4...e5!, as in the
31
Sicilia n Kan
game.
1 4 . . JHe8 1 5 f4 e5!
An important defensive thrust in the Kan
which highlights another positive feature of
the kingside fianchetto: ... e6-e5 becomes
much more playable as White's knight no
longer has access to the fS-square, such an
important point for White's attacking ambi­
tions. As for the qualities of ... eS, it's true
that Black gives away the dS-square, but this
is compensated for by the acquisition of the
eS-square and pressure against White's iso­
lated e-pawn. Black is certainly not without
counterplay.
Strangely enough, 1 5 ... i.f8 would trans­
pose to the note to Black's 1 4th move in
Game to (which was fine for Black), al­
though of course it looks ridiculous to play
it here!
1 6 fxe5 lt:'lxe5 1 7 J:t.de1 b5!?
Now the game explodes into unclear
complications. If Black wishes to play more
quietly, then 1 7 ...l::te7 with a possible dou­
bling on the e-ftle makes sense.
1 8 cxb5 d5! 1 9 J:t.xf6! ? i.xf6 20 bxa6
i.xa6 21 lt:'lxd5 'i'd6 22 lt:'lb5 ..ixb5 23
lt:'lxf6 + 'i'xf6 24 'i'xb5 'i'f2 25 ..ic3
lt:'lg4 26 'i'g5 l:lac8 27 i.b4 'i'd4 28
'i'xg4 'i'xb4 29 J:t.f1 'i'd2 30 'i'f3 J:t.e7
31 h4 J:t.c3 32 'i'f6 l:td7 33 'it>h2 l:tc 1 34
..id3 .l:!.xf1 35 i.xf1 'i'e 1 36 'i'f4 J:t.e7 37
..id3 h5 38 'i'g5?? l:t.d7 ! 39 i.b5 J:t.d 1 40
'i'f4 'i'g1 + 41 'ith3 l:te1 0-1
32
Game 9
Trapl-Tompa
Decin 1977
1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6
5 ..id3 lt:'lf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4
i.e7
Finally we come to the classical devel­
opment of the f8-bishop. Advantages over
the fianchetto include the saving of a
tempo, no weakening of the dark squares
and better protection of the d6-pawn. The
main disadvantage is that Black's kingside is
less well protected.
9 lt:'lc3 0-0
1 0 'ith 1
Once again we see this prophylactic idea,
clearing the king from possible tactics along
the long gl -a7 diagonal. John Nunn has also
described such moves as 'lazy' - White can't
be bothered to work out the tactics on every
move so he gets rid of the possibility. On
this occasion there is a case for deleting it,
or at least postponing it for the time being.
The extra tempo could, after all, prove to be
very useful in building up a strong attack.
More aggressive is 10 f4!? and now:
a) 10 ...lt::lc 6?! 1 1 lt::lx c6! bxc6 (or t t . . .'ilt'xc6
12 eS dxeS 1 3 fxeS lt::ld7 14 i.f4 and White
can freely build up a kingside attack; note
that Black has much less pressure on eS
without the bishop on g7) 1 2 eS lt::ld7 (or
 5 i. d3 lD f6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d6

1 2... dxe5 1 3 fxe5 lLld7 14 i.f4!) 1 3 exd6

i.xd6 1 4 lLle4 1l..e 7 1 5 b3! c5 1 6 1l..b 2 i.b7
17 f5! exf5 1 8 .l:txf5 and White's pieces
point ominously towards the kingside, Ryt­
shagov-Hellsten, Asker 1 997.
b) 10 ... b6 (I can find no games with this
move, which is hardly surprising as it looks
very risky at best) and now:
b1) 1 1 i.d2 i.b7 1 2 .l:tae1 lLlc6! (if Black
still has the option, ...lLlc6 is often very ef­
fective against i.d2, .l:tae1 plans as it leaves
the d7-square available for the other knight;
of course, Black is often already committed
to playing ...ltJbd7) 13 lLlxc6 11..xc6 looks c21) 1 4...'tlr'xe5 is less effective here than
okay for Black. Note that 14 lLld5? doesn't in the note 'e3' to Black's 1 3th move: 1 5
work here: 14 ... exd5 15 exd5 i.d7 16 'tlr'xe7 'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 1 6 .l:txe5 .l:tad8 1 7 lLlce2 i.c5
.l:tae8 and the queen is trapped. (17 ... lLlg4 18 .l:th5 g6 19 .l:th3 i.cS 20 .l:tf4!
b2) 1 1 e5! (why not?) 1 1 ... dxe5 1 2 fxe5 h5 21 b4 and White wins) 1 8 i.c3 lLld7 1 9
lLlfd7 13 i.f4! (13 'tlr'e4?! wins a rook but .l:txc5 lLlxc5 20 i.c2 and White's two pieces
after 13 ... g6 14 'tlr'xa8? i.b7 15 'tlr'a7 i.c5 1 6 outweigh the rook and pawn.
i.e3 i.xd4 1 7 i.xd4 lLlc6 White's queen is c22) 1 4... i.c5! 1 5 .l:tf4! (15 exf6 i.xd4+
trapped; this resource is definitely worth 16 'it>h 1 lLlxf6 gives White nothing).
remembering) 1 3 ... i.b7 1 4 lLle4 and White's
pieces flood into the centre. Black already
has to watch out for ideas such as lLlf6+,
while 14 ...lLlxe5 15 'tlr'h5 f5 1 6 lLlxe6 looks
very dangerous.
c) 10 ...lLlbd7 is the most sensible move;
Black prevents e4-e5 for the time being: 1 1
i.d2 b6 1 2 l:he1 (renewing the idea o f e4-
e5) with a further split:
c1) 12 ... .l:td8!? provides an antidote
against e4-e5; 13 e5? dxe5 1 4 fxe5 'tlr'xe5 1 5
'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 leaves the d4-knight e n prise;
this is a common resource for Black. White
can transpose into the main game with 1 3 In this position both sides must tread ex­
'it>h1 i.b7, when Black has already commit­ tremely carefully:
ted his f8-rook to d8. c221) 1 5 ...lLle8 is 'safe' but not the way
c2) 1 2 ...i.b7 to play; it does nothing to oppose White's
attack. After 1 6 lLla4 White has a clear plus.
see following diagram
c222) 15 ... 'tlr'xe5 16 'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 17 .l:txe5
1 3 e5!? (fhis is absolutely critical, al­ .l:tad8 1 8 lLlce2 lLld7 19 ne3 e5 20 .l:th4 g6
though I can find no games from this posi­ 21 lLlb3 f5 22 g3! and White is better.
tion! 13 'it>h 1 would transpose into the main c223) 1 5 ...l::. fd8 16 exf6 lLlxf6 17 i.e3 (17
game.) 13 ... dxe5 14 fxe5 and now we have 'tli'f2 e5 18 nxf6 .l:txd4! is good for Black)
the following: 1 7 ...e5 1 8 l::.x f6 exd4 1 9 lLld5! 'tlr'e5! (other

33
Sicilian Ka n
moves lose: 1 9 ... j_xd5 20 j_f4 �d7 21 �h5
h6 22 cxd5 gxf6 23 �xh6, or 1 9 ...l:txd5 20
j_f4 'iid7 21 cxd5 gxf6 22 'iih5) 20 l:tf5
l:txd5! 21 cxd5 'iix e3+ 22 �ft g6 and Black
has a pawn and reasonable compensation
for the exchange.
c224) 1 5 ...l:tad8 (there are some small
differences if Black chooses this rook) 1 6
exf6 ttJxf6 1 7 j_e3 e 5 1 8 l:txf6 exd4 1 9
ttJd5! �e5! ( 1 9. . .j_xd5 2 0 j.h6! j_e6 2 1
j_xg7! �xg7 22 'iih 5 �xf6 23 'iih4+ �g7
24 'iix h7+ �f6 25 'iih 4+ �g7 26 'iig 5+
�h8 27 �h6+ �g8 28 �h7 is mate;
19 ... l:txd5 20 j_h6! l:te5! 21 'iixe5 'iix e5 22
l:txe5 gxf6 23 l:txc5 bxc5 24 j_xh7+ �xh7
25 j_xf8 d3 26 �£2 j_xg2 27 j_xc5 i.e4 28
j_e3 f5 29 b4 is probably a winning ending
for White) 20 j_xh7+!? (20 l:tf5 l:txd5 21
cxd5 'iix e3+ is again unclear) 20 ... �xh7 21
�d3+ �g8 22 i.d2 l:txd5 23 l:txe5 l:txe5
and this is still difficult to assess - Black has
quite good compensation for the queen.
Crazy sruff, but it hammers home one
point: Black must be very well prepared and
resourceful against these quick-fire attacks
from White. White's 'gain' of a tempo by
avoiding �g1 -h1 very much raises the
stakes - one small mistake from either side
could prove to be devastating.
Generally in the i.d3 lines White aims
for an attack on the king, but it should be
pointed out that White can also adopt the
anti-Hedgehog set-up with, for example, 10
j_e3 tiJbd7 11 l:tacl b6 1 2 f3 j.b7 1 3 l:tfd1
l:tac8. This position is more often reached
via 5 c4 and will be discussed in Chapter 9.
1 0 . . . b6 1 1 f4 lLlbd7
More sensible than 1 1 ...j.b7, which al­
lows 12 e5!.
1 2 i.d2
For 12 b3, see Game 10.
The immediate 12 f5 is answered simply
by 1 2 ...ttJe5!. I n general White should wait
for Black to commit himself to ...j_b7 be­
fore playing f4-f5, so that the light-squared
bishop no longer defends e6.
34
It's important for Black to know how to
react to the hyper-aggressive 1 2 g4!?, despite
the fact that I can find hardly any games
with this move.
Black always has to be careful of the g2-
g4-g5 thrust. This is even more dangerous if
Black is already committed to ...ttJbd7 so
that the d7-square is not vacant for a ... t2Jf6-
d7 retreat. Deprived of this square, the
knight may have to do with the inferior e8
square, from where it is far less influential.
Black's choices are:
a) 12 ... d5? 13 cxd5 exd5 1 4 e5! with a
clear plus for White.
b) 12 ... ttJc5 13 j.b1 j.b7 14 g5 tDe8
(14...ttJfd7 loses a piece to 15 b4; this is the
problem with having both knights on the
same circuit) 1 5 f5 exf5 (or 1 5 ...e5 16 ttJf3
b5 1 7 tiJd5 j_xd5 1 8 cxd5) 1 6 ttJxf5 j_d8
17 ttJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 and White has
strong pressure on the kingside, Pallova­
Palkova, Chrudim 1 994.
c) 12 ... h6!? 13 h4 (13 g5 hxg5 14 fxg5
tDe8 1 5 g6 tDe5 1 6 gxf7 + t2Jxf7 is okay for
Black) and now:
cl) 13 ...ttJc5 1 4 i.c2 e5 (or 14 ... j.b7 1 5
g5 hxg5 1 6 hxg5 tiJh7 1 7 l:t£2, followed by
l:th2) 1 5 tiJf5 i.xf5 1 6 gxf5 and again the
strucrure favours White.
c2) 13 ... h5! (it's worth sacrificing the h­
pawn to negate White's kingside charge) 1 4
gxh5 ttJc5 1 5 h 6 g6! looks okay for Black.
d) 12 ... g6! (this looks best) 13 g5 ttJh5 1 4

fS lLleS 1 5 f6 .i.dS and Black can be happy.
The bishop is misplaced on dS but both
knights are on strong outposts. White's
pawns on f6 and gS look awesome but it's
very difficult for White to make progress
and indeed Black could eventually try to
dismantle them with a timely ... h7-h6.
12 . . . �b7
I f Black is concerned about White's pos­
sibility in the next note and doesn't mind
transposing into note 'e' to Black's 13th
move, then he could employ the move or­
der 1 2 ... .:.cs, answering 1 3 fS with 13 ....i.f8!
keeping the structure intact.
1 3 l:tae 1
This is White's most aggressive set-up.
Note that the bishop is better placed on d2
rather than e3 as it doesn't obstruct White's
major pieces on the c-fJ..!e. It seems that the
threat is very much e4-e5, or is it? Sec note
'c' to Black's 1 3th move.
As an alternative, attacking with 13 fS!?
certainly springs to mind, especially as Black
doesn't have time to defend e6 with ... :reS
and ....i.f8 (or ...:aeS and ....i.dS). Black can
continue with:
a) 13 ...e5 14 lLlc2 lL:lcS (14...b5 1 5 cxbS
axbS 1 6 lLlxbS doesn't give Black anything
like what he needs for the pawn) 1 5 lLle3 bS
16 lLledS .i.xdS 17 lLlxdS lLlxdS l S cxdS
gives White a nice space advantage, Milos­
Zapata, Bogota 1 992.
b) 13 ... lL:lc5 14 fxc6 fxe6 15 .i.c2! (15 b4?
5 .1L d 3 ti'J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6
lLlxd3 1 6 'ifxd3 nfcS! 1 7 lLlxe6 'ifxc4 is
good for Black) 15 ... a5 (giving away the bS­
squarc but b2-b4 had to be prevented) 1 6
b3 :res 1 7 a3 .i.f8 t S b 4 axb4 1 9 axb4 lLla6
20 .i.a4 :e7 21 .l:tabt and Black was some­
what uncomfortable in Kudrin-Bakhtadzc,
Ycrcvan 1 996.
If Black cannot improve in the above
lines, then it may well be that 1 3 fS is
stronger than the 'automatic' 1 3 :ac t . Food
for thought!
1 3 . . . l:tfd8
Black's rook indirectly hits the knight on
d4 and thus prevents e4-e5 for the moment.
Also, the f8-square is vacated in case of
... .i.f8 or ... lLlf8. However, there arc cer­
tainly other options for Black:
a) 13 .. JhcS (this move is too routine) 1 4
cS! lL:lcS (Vehi Bach-Raurell Bernada, Olot
1 992) and now Zeller's suggestion of 15 b3
keeps White ahead - the knight on eS is a
poor p1ece.
b) 13 ... 'ifc5?!, with the idea of 14 lL:lb3
'ifhS, looks very risky - the black queen is
committed to hS and is lacking safe squares,
assuming White avoids an exchange of
queens.
c) 13 ... g6 14 fS! (14 cS lLlhS looks okay
for Black) 14 ... exf5 1 5 exfS lL:leS 1 6 .i.gS
'ii'd S 1 7 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 t S .i.e4 .i.xc4 1 9 'ifxc4
and White has an excellent outpost for the
knight on dS, Luther-Perdomo, Cali 2000.
d) 13 ...:adS (Black wants to follow up
with ....:.feS and ....i.f8) 14 fS! eS (1 4...lL:lc5
15 fxe6 fxe6 1 6 .i.c2 aS 17 a3! is good for
White) 1 5 lLlc2 lL:lcS (1 5 ... b5 is a sacrificial
suggestion from Zeller; after 1 6 cxbS axbS
17 lLlxbS 'ifbS t S lL:lc3 lL:lcS 19 lL:lb4 I don't
believe Black has enough for the pawn) 1 6
lLle3 b S 1 7 lL:ledS lLlxdS t S lLlxdS .i.xdS 1 9
cxdS is similar to note 'a' to White's 1 3th
move - White has a pleasant space advan­
tage.
e) 1 3 ...:fcS!? looks suicidal, but is it
really so straightforward? White has the
following possibilities:
35
Sicilian Kan
e1) 1 4 fS can be answered by 1 4... �£8!,
keeping the structure intact.
e2) White should consider the rook lift
1 4 no, for example 1 4... nadS (or 1 4...g6 1 S
ng3 .:adS 1 6 fS �f8) 1 S nh3 .tf8 1 6 ltJO
g6 17 lDgS lDcS (or 17. ..�g7!? 1S eS dxeS
19 fxeS 'il'xeS 20 'il'xeS lDxeS 21 :xeS h6!)
1 S i.c2 h6 19 eS!? led to great complica­
tions in Toth-Trincado, Mar del Plata 1 990.
e3) 1 4 eS (Of course! Doesn't this just
win a piece?) 14 ... dxeS 1 S fxeS 'il'xeS! 1 6
'il'xeS lDxeS 1 7 :xeS .:adS
(White is a piece for a pawn up but is
well and truly skewered on the d-file!) 1 S
lDce2 lL:!g4 1 9 nhs g6 20 nh3 i.cS! and
now, instead of 20 ... eS? 21 lDb3 which is
winning for White (Zeller), Black should
play 21 ...i.cS!:
e31) 21 ng3 lL:!eS 22 i.b1 (22 �gS?!
i.xd4 23 i.xdS nxdS 24 b3 �cS 2S lDf4 fS
26 h3 'li;f7 27 .tb 1 nd2 and White was in
some trouble in the game H.Hunt-Ahrens,
Bratislava 1 993) i.xd4 23 lL:!xd4 nxd4 24
i.c3 :edS 2S i.xd4 nxd4 and Black has
excellent compensation for the slight mate­
rial disadvantage.
e32) 21 nf4 hS (or 21 ...fS!?) 22 lDb3 eS
23 :n lDf2+ 24 nxf2 i.xf2 and I prefer
Black's rook and pawn over the two
knights.
If the above analysis in note 'e' holds up,
then both 1 2...:es and 13 ... nfeS are of
substantial importance in the assessment of
36
this line.
1 4 ll'lf3
Preparing e4-eS or ltJO-gS. Alternatively:
a) 1 4 b4 (expanding on the queenside
and preventing ...lDcS) and now:
a 1) 1 4...g6?! 1 S fS! exfS (1S ...ltJf8 16 fxe6
fxe6 1 7 lDxe6! lDxe6 1 S ltJdS i.xdS 1 9 exdS
and Black can already resign) 16 exfS looks
dangerous for Black, Adla-Paramos Dom­
inguez, Mondariz 1 994.
a2) I believe Black should play 14 ... i. f8!.
Now he is ready to play 1S ...g6, meeting 1 6
fS with 1 6. . .:es!.
b) I can find no examples of 14 nO!? pre­
paring to swing the rook: 14 ... .tf8 1 S nh3
g6 16 fS and again Black should retract with
1 6 ... neS! to keep the structure intact.
1 4 . . . g6
So that Black can answer 1 S eS with
1 S ... lL:!hS 16 i.e4 (or 1 6 g4 lL:!g7 17 i.e4
i.xe4 1S 'il'xe4 ltJcS) 16 ... i.xe4 17 'il'xe4
lDcS 1 S 'il'e2 :acS and Black is fine.
1 5 lt'lg5 �fS
1 S ... h6 also looks playable: 16 lDO (hav­
ing provoked a slight weakness, the knight
returns; 1 6 lDxf7 'li;xf7 1 7 eS dxeS 1 S fxeS
lL:!xeS looks unsound) 16 ... .tf8 17 nc1 .tg7
1 S i.b 1 :acS 1 9 b3 'il'bS (Kudrin-Dzindzi­
chashvili, Philadelphia 1 992) and here White
should push on with 20 fS. In view of this, I
prefer the prophylactic 1 9 ...:eS!.
1 6 'ii'f 2 �g7 1 7 'ii'g 3 lt'lc5 1 8 �c2
1 8 . . . d5?

Right idea, wrong timing. Stronger is
1 8 ... h6 1 9 lL\f3 and only then 1 9 ... d5!. I f
anything, I then prefer Black.
19 cxd5 exd5 20 e5 f?Jfe4 21 f?Jcxe4
f?Jxe4 22 .i.xe4 dxe4 23 .i.c3 l:td3
After this Black is a pawn down with no
compensation, but following 23 ...'ir'c4
White can play 24 fS!, for example 24... h6
25 lLlxf7! 'ir'xf7 26 e6 'ir'e8 27 ..txg7 �xg7
28 f6+ �h8 29 'ir'c7.
24 �h4 h6 25 f?Jxe4 �c6 26 �f2 l:tad8
27 f?Jd6 .i.a8 28 f5 g5 29 f6 .i.f8 30
lLlf5 l:te8 31 e6 l:txe6 32 lLle7 + .i.xe7
33 fxe7 f5 34 l:txe6 �xe6 35 �xf5 1 -0
Game 10
Plachetka-Ravikumar
Pofitiken Cup, Copenhagen 1980
'-------•
1 e4 c5 2 f?Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 f?Jxd4 a6
5 �d3 f?Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4
�e7 9 b3
This is the most accurate move order for
White to reach the position after the 12th
move. Instead 9 lL\c3 0-0 10 b3 allows Black
to play 10 ...b5!, exploiting the undefended
knight on c3: 1 1 ..tb2 b4 t 2 lLlbt lLlbd7 13
lLld2 ..tb7 1 4 l:tael lLlcS and White cannot
shift the powerful knight on cS.
9 . . .0-0 10 �b2 f?Jbd7 1 1 f?Jc3
The alternative knight development with
1 1 lLld2 can be seen in Game 1 1 .
1 1 . . . b6
5 � d3 f:D f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6
Again w e see the queenside fianchetto
from White. I believe it's more dangerous
here than against ...g6 and ... ..tg7; Black will
find it more difficult to arrange a successful
... e6-e5 break against f2-f4.
1 2 l:tad1
Once more the most aggressive plan is
12 f4 ..tb7 13 .U.ael and now:
a) 13. .. .l:tad8 14 fS!? (1 4 �hl l:tfe8! 1 5
..tbt ..tf8 1 6 lLlf3 g6 1 7 e S lLlhS 1 8 lLlgS
..tg7 was okay for Black in Soylu-Cebalo,
Budva 1 981) with a further split:
a 1) 14 ...lLlc5 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 16 ..tc2 aS
(1 6 ... ..tc8 17 b4 lLlb7 18 ..tb3) 17 a3!, in­
tending b3-b4, is uncomfortable for Black.
a2) 1 4 ...e5 1 5 lLlc2 bS! (a suggestion from
Zeller; this sacrifice works quite well here)
1 6 cxbS axbS 1 7 b4 (17 lLlxbS? 'ir'b6+ 1 8
�ht lLlcS is good for Black) 1 7 ... d5 1 8 exdS
lLlxdS 19 lLlxdS ..txdS 20 ..txbS 'ir'a7+ 21
'ir'f2 'ir'xa2 22 ..txeS lLlxeS 23 l:txeS ..tf6
and Black's bishop pair provide good com­
pensation for the pawn.
b) 1 3. .. g6 14 eS (14 fS exfS 1 5 exfS lL\eS
16 ..te4 lLlxe4 1 7 lLlxe4 l:tfe8 18 'ir'd2 ..txe4
19 l:txe4 ..tf8 was level in Zapata-Blanco
Fernandez, Matanzas 1 995) 14 ...lLlh5! 1 5
fS?! dxeS (Erdogdu-Mastrovasilis, Antalya
2001) 1 6 fxe6 lLlc5!
and I believe the complications favour
Black: 17 exf7+ l:txf7 1 8 l:txf7 �xf7 1 9 lLlf3
lLlf4 20 "i!VxeS (20 lLlxeS+ �g8 21 'ir'c2
..td6!) 20... ..td6 21 'ir'd4 lLlcxd3 22 liJbS
37
Sicilian Kan
i.cS!.
1 2 . . . i.b7
To include other possibilities I've again
fiddled with the move order. The actual
sequence was 6 ... d6 7 c4 i.e7 8 lbc3 0-0 9
b3 b6 10 i.b2 i.b7 1 1 �e2 lDbd7 1 2 :ad1
�c7.
1 3 i. b 1 .I::Ue 8 1 4 f4 .l:!.ac8?!
Funnily enough, Black's best plan is to
concede a tempo or two and fianchetto the
dark-squared bishop in any case! This leads
to positions similar to Game 8, although of
course the lost tempi mean it's not such a
good version: 14 ... i.f8! 1 5 'it>h 1 g6! 1 6 lbf3
:adS 17 lbgS i.g7 1 8 :d2 h6 1 9 lbh3 lbcs
and Black had arranged a successful defen­
sive formation, Granda Zuniga-Milov, Vil­
larrobledo (rapid) 1 997.
1 5 liJf3 i.f8 1 6 'it>h 1 i.c6?
Now 16 ...g6 really was vital.
1 7 e5!
This advance is very strong here. Black can­
not resist White's forthcoming attack.
1 7 . . . i.xf3 1 8 .l:!.xf3 dxe5 1 9 fxe5
1 9 . . .liJg4
Or:
a) 19 ... �xe5 20 lbe4 �aS (20 ... �c7 21
lDxf6+ lDxf6 22 l:.xf6! gxf6 23 �g4+ i.g7
24 i.xf6 wins - Plachetka) 21 i.c3 �a3 22
lbxf6+ lbxf6 23 �c2 i.e7 24 b4 llxc4 25
i.xf6 :xc2 26 :xa3 and White wins.
b) 19 ... lbxe5 20 lDbS! axbS 21 i.xeS �e7
22 �c2 and White wins - Plachetka.
38
20 .l:!.xf7! 'it>xf7 21 'i!fxg4 g6
2t ...lbxe5 22 �hS+ (Plachetka) 22 ... lbg6
23 lbe4 gives White a winning attack.
22 liJe4 liJc5 23 liJf6 .l:!.ed8 24 .l:!.f 1 'it>g7
25 liJxh7 liJd3
Or 25 ...'it>xh7 26 i.xg6+ 'it>h8 27 �hS+
'it>g8 28 i. f7 +.
26 liJxf8 l:bf8 27 .l:!.xf8 l:!.xf8 28 i.xd3
'i!ff7 29 h4 .l:!.d8 30 i.e4 .l:f.d2 31 i.c1
'i!ff1 + 32 'it>h2 'i!fxc1 33 'i!Vxg6 + 'it>f8 34
'i!ff6 + �g8 35 'i!fxe6 + 'it>g7 36 'ilff6 +
'it>g8 37 e6 1 -0
Game l !
Csoke-Lehoczki
Hungarian League 1998
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6
5 i.d3 liJf6 6 0-0 'i!fc7 7 'i!fe2 d6 8 c4
i.e 7 9 b3 0-0 1 0 i.b2 liJbd7 1 1 liJd2
1 1 f4 b6 1 2 lbd2 will transpose, but note
that 1 1 ...:e8? 12 lbxe6! fxe6 13 eS l:tf8 1 4
exf6 lDxf6 1 5 lDd2 led t o a clear advantage
for White in Moiseev-Cvitan, Sibenik 1 988.
This is a trick worth remembering.
1 1 . . .b6 1 2 f4 i.b7
The actual move order of the game was 9
f4 lbbd7 10 b3 b6 1 1 i.b2 i.b7 1 2 lDd2
0-0.
1 3 l:!.ae 1
With the knight o n d 2 the presence o f
the b2-bishop is felt more - there i s only
one knight blocking it. On the other hand,

White has less conttol over the d5-square. I f
Black can arrange a favourable ... e6-e5 he
does not have to worry about tLld5 ideas.
1 3 . . J:!.fd8
Again aimed at the advance e4-e5. On
this occasion the knight on d4 is protected,
but Black can still use tactics to disarm
White's thrust. Other possibilities include:
a) 13 ... e5?! 14 tLlf5 l:tfe8 15 g4 tLlc5
(1 5 ...'ilfc5+? 1 6 'it>hl i.f8 17 g5 exf4 1 8
l:txf4 g6 [Moiseev-Vasiukov, Sibenik 1 988]
19 gxf6 gxf5 20 l:tg1 + 'it>h8 21 'ilfh5 and
Black will be very quickly mated, for exam­
ple 21...tLle5 22 'ilfxh7+ 'it>xh7 23 l:th4+
i.h6 24 l:tg7+ 'it>h8 25 l:txh6 mate) 16 g5
tLlfd7 17 tLlxe 7+ l:txe7 1 8 f5 f6 19 h4 and
White has a sttong bind on the position,
Anka-Csoke, Hungarian League 1 994.
b) 13 ... g6!? (making the h5-square avail­
able) 1 4 e5 tLlh5 1 5 i.e4 (15 f5 dxe5 1 6 fxe6
i.c5! 17 exd7? 'ilfxd7 1 8 'ifxe5 l:tae8! is
winning for Black) 1 5 ... tLlc5 1 6 i.xb7 'ilfxb7
(Zeller) and Black can be reasonably happy
with his position.
c) 13 ...l:tad8 14 e5?! (White should play
more quietly with 1 4 i.b 1 or 1 4 'it>h 1 , al­
though this then gives Black the chance to
play ... g7 -g6) 14 ... dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ilfxe5! 1 6
'ilfxe5 tLlxe5 1 7 l:txe5 i.c5 1 8 l:tf4 tLld7 1 9
l:th5 g 6 20 l:th3 e 5 21 l:tfh4 tLlf6 was good
for Black in Szieberth-Izsak, Budapest 1995.
14 e5!?
Again White can play with 1 4 'it>h1 or 1 4
5 i. d 3 li:::. f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 7 'ii e 2 d 6
i. b 1 , but this i s critical.
1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 l'i:::. x e6!
15 fxe5 'ilfxe5! 16 'ilfxe5 tLlxe5 17 l:txe5
i.c5 18 l:tf4 tLld7! (Moiseev) and Black will
regain the piece with ... e6-e5.
1 5 . . . fxe6 1 6 fxe5
1 6 . . . l'i:::. c 5?!
Black returns the piece and accepts a
slight disadvantage. However, I can't find
anything wrong with 1 6 ... tLle8! here.
a) Moiseev gives 17 'ili'h5 but then Black
has the clever defence 1 7 ...tLldf6! 1 8 exf6
'ilfc5+ 1 9 'ifxc5 (19 l:tf2 'ilfxh5 20 fxe7 tLlf6
21 exd8'if+ l:f.xd8 is good for Black)
1 9 ...i.xc5+ 20 'it>h 1 tLlxf6 21 i.e4 tLlxe4 22
tLlxe4 i.xe4 23 l:txe4 l:td2 with a better
ending for Black.
b) 17 i.xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 1 8 'ilfh5+ 'it>g8 1 9
'ilff7+ 'it>h7 looks best, but White has no
more than a perpetual check.
An earlier game saw 1 6 ... tLlxe5?! 1 7 i.xe5
'ilfd7 (Moiseev-Vyzmanavin, USSR 1 989)
and now 1 8 i.e4! (Vyzmanavin) 1 8...tLlxe4
1 9 tLlxe4 i.xe4 20 'ilfxe4 leaves White with
an advantage due to Black's weak e6-pawn.
1 7 exf6 l:ixd3 1 8 fxe 7
After 1 8 f7+ Black plays 1 8 ...'it>f8!, but
not 1 8 ... 'it>h8? 19 'ili'g4 i.f8 20 'ilfxg7+!.
1 8 . . . 'iix e7 1 9 b 4 .:adS 2 0 i.c1
So far the players had been following
analysis from Moiseev, who assessed this
position as slightly better for White. This is
correct - White reaches an ending with
39
Sicilian Kan
some chances to convert an extra pawn. In
this game White actually loses his pawn
advantage but ends up winning anyway after
some inaccurate play from Black.
20 . . . ltJa4 21 'ii'x e6 + 'ii'x e6 22 �xe6
�c3 23 .l:!.e7 .l:!.f8 24 l:txb7 l:txf1 + 25
lt>xf1 .l:l.xc1 + 26 lt>e2 .l:!.c2 27 lt>e3 .l:!.xa2
28 .l:l.a7 .l:l.b2 29 .l:!.xa6 l:txb4 30 ltJe4
ltJc5 3 1 .l:l.a8 + �f7 32 .l:!.a7 + lt>g6 33
ltJd6 l:tb3 + 34 'it>f4 l:lb2 35 ltJe8 �f2 +
36 lt>e3 l:f7 37 l:xf7 'it>xf7 38 ltJc7 ltJd7
39 lt>d4 lLlf6 40 h3 h6 41 ltJa8 ltJd7 42
lt>d5 lt>e7 43 �c6 ltJe5 + 44 lt>b5 lt>f6
45 ltJxb6 lt>f5 46 c5 lt>f4 4 7 ltJc4 ltJg6
48 c6 ltJe7 49 c7 'iti>g3 50 ltJb6 lt>xg2 5 1
lt>c5 lt>xh3 52 lt>d6 g 5 5 3 lt>xe7 1 -0
Game 12
Sandor-Chernuschevich
Poznan 1995
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 c4
ltJbd7 ! ?
A flexible move. Black waits t o see how
White plays it before deciding whether to
fianchetto or not. In some cases Black can
also play an early ... lbe5 or possibly ... tt:'lc5
instead.
9 f4!
By playing f2-f4 immediately, White cuts
out any early ... tt:'le5 ideas for Black. I think
this is White's strongest move order. Other
40
moves include:
a) 9 lL'lc3 lL'le5!? (9 ... g6 10 l:td1 i.g7 1 1
tt:'lf3 0-0 1 2 .i.f4 transposes to Game 5; for
9 ... b6 1 0 f4 .i.e7 see the note to Black's 9th
move) 10 'ith1 .i.e7 1 1 f4 tt:'lxd3 12 �xd3
0-0 13 b3 b6 14 .i.b2 i.b7 1 5 l:tae1 l:tad8
16 'ir'g3 l:tfe8 occurred in Gavrilakis­
Velikov, Kavala 1 990. This defensive set-up
looks quite satisfactory for Black. The ex­
change of the knight for White's light­
squared bishop seems to dull White's at­
tacking chances. The game continued 1 7
l:te3 �d7 1 8 �e1 g6 1 9 f5?! tt:'lg4 20 f6?
.i.xf6 21 l:txf6 tt:'lxf6 22 �h4 �e7 23 l:th3
tt:'lh5 and Black went on to win.
b) 9 b3 g6! (as we already know, the king­
side fianchetto works well against White's
queenside fianchetto) 10 i.b2 .i.g7 1 1 tt:'lc3
0-0 transposes to Game 8.
9 . . . g6!?
Now White has committed himself to
playing f2-f4, Black logically goes for a king­
side fianchetto. By now we know that this
defensive set-up works well against a king­
side storm. However, on this particular oc­
casion Black has problems with the defence
of e6 due to the early development of the
d7-knight. If White proceeds energetically
then Black cannot keep his pawn structure
intact.
9 ... h5!? is a very ambitious move cham­
pioned by the German IM Karl Heinz Pod­
zielny.

10 'it>h 1 ! (10 b3 'ii'b6! 1 1 i.e3 lt:\g4
shows a point of Black's 9th move: 1 2 lt:\c3
g6 1 3 l:.adl lt:\xe3 1 4 'ii'xe3 i.g7 and Black
was fine in Leko-Podzielny, Dortmund
1991) 10 ... b6 1 1 lt:\c3 i.b7 12 fS! lt:\cs
(12... eS 13 ltJdS ltJxdS 14 exdS ltJf6 l S ltJf3
h4 16 ltJgS i.e7 17 i.e3 ltJd7 18 lt:\e4 left
White with a massive knight on e4,
Z.Szabo-Lehoczki, Solymar 1 996) 13 i.c2
exfS 14 ltJdS i.xdS l S exdS+ 'ii'e7 1 6
'ii'x e7+ 'it>xe7 1 7 i.gS and White has a terri­
fic ending, Quinteros-Debarnot, Sao Paulo
1 972.
9 ...i.e7 10 lt:\c3 b6 could transpose into
lines considered earlier on in the chapter,
but let's see what happens if Black delays
castling:
a) 1 1 'it>h 1 is important because it can be
reached by transposition from lines where
White plays a very early 'it>h 1 : l l .. . ..ib7 and
now:
al) 1 2 i.d2 g6!? (12... 0-0 transposes to
Game 9) with a further split:
al l) 13 l:tacl hS! (a Podzielny speciality;
possible ideas include ... hS-h4, followed by
...ltJhS-g3+ or simply ... h4-h3) 1 4 b4 h4 l S
a3 l:tc8 1 6 .U.cel 'ii'b 8 1 7 ..icl b S 1 8 ..ib2
bxc4 1 9 i.xc4 'ii'a8 20 ltJf3 h3 21 g3 0-0 22
..id3 aS! 23 bS tLlcS and Black was doing
well in Siemes-Podzielny, correspondence
1 998.
a12) 13 l:tael (this looks more consistent
than 13 l:.acl) 13. .. hS!? 14 eS (14 ltJdS?
5 i. d3 tiJ f6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d 6
exdS l S exdS 0-0 1 6 'ii'xe7 l:.ae8 wins for
Black - Zeller; 1 4 fS allows Black to dem­
onstrate a point of ...g7 -g6: 14 ...gxfS! l S
exfS e S 1 6 ltJb3 h4 and Black aims for
counterplay against g2) 1 4 ... dxeS l S fxeS
lt:\g4 16 tLlxe6!? (16 ..if4 is less ambitious)
16 ... fxe6 17 i.xg6+ 'it>d8 18 i.f4 (Zeller)
with a very unclear position. White has two
pawns and Black's king is not safe. On the
other hand, Black is a piece ahead and is
quite active himself.
a2) I prefer the move 1 2 fS!, for example
1 2...eS (or 12 ...ltJcS 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 ..ic2 aS
l S lt:\a4!) 13 lt:\c2 ltJcS 14 lt:\e3 looks better
for White - compare to the note to White's
1 3th move in Game 9.
b) 1 1 i.d2 (again White does without the
'safe but lazy' 'it>h 1) l l ...i.b7 1 2 l:.ae1 l:.d8?
(Black should play 12 ... 0-0, transposing
to note 'c2' to White's 1 0th move in Game
9, or 1 2 ...g6; 1 2...l:.d8 prevents e4-eS but...)
13 ltJdS!! exdS 14 exdS 0-0 (14 ...ltJcS l S
..ic2 l:.d7 1 6 b4!) l S ltJfS! and the rook on
d8 is a real liability - the e7-bishop cannot
escape: 1 S ...l:.fe8 16 lt:\xe 7+ 'it>f8 17 l:.f3!
lt:\g4 (17 ...lt:\cs 1 8 .U.e3 l:td7 19 lt:\g6+! -
Zeller) 1 8 h3 ltJdf6 1 9 hxg4 lt:\xg4 20 l:.h3
and White won in Fogarasi-Erdelyi, Switzer­
land 1 992.
1 0 f5!
It's critical that White plays this now be­
fore Black has a chance to play ...i.g7 to
defend f6. After 10 lt:\c3?! i.g7 1 1 fS Black
41
Sicilian Kan
keeps the order with 1 1 ...lDeS!.
1 0 . . . gxf5?!
1 0...cS looks stronger: 11 lLJc2 il..e 7 12
lLle3 lLJcS 1 3 il..c 2!? (13 lLJc3 looks safe for
an edge) 1 3. .. lLlcxe4!? (13 ...gxfS 1 4 exfS left
White with a solid bind over the dS-square
in Varavin-Tunik, USSR 1 991) 1 4 il..xe4
lLlxe4 1 S lLJdS 'ticS+ 1 6 .ie3 'ii'c6 1 7 f6!
(17 fxg6 hxg6 1 8 il..b 6 il..e 6! as 1 9 lLJc7+
'it>d7 20 lLlxa8 .l:!.xa8 21 'ir'e3 il..gS is winning
for Black) 1 7 ...il..d 8 1 8 'ir'f3 lLJcS 1 9 b4 lLJe6
20 lLld2 and White has good compensation
for the pawn (analysis by Varavin).
l O ... lLJeS? is of course impossible because
of 1 1 fxe6.
1 1 exf5 e5 1 2 tt'le6!
This idea is worth remembering; Black is
already in some trouble.
1 2 . . .'i!i'c6?
More resolute is 1 2... fxe6 13 fxe6 JJ..g7 1 4
exd7 + il..xd7 1 S lLJc3 il..c 6 (Escobar­
Filgueira, Buenos Aires 1 989) although I
think White is still doing well after 1 6 .igS!.
1 3 tt'lc3 i.e7 1 4 tt'ld5! fxe6 1 5 fxe6
tt'lxd5 1 6 cxd5 'i'xd5 1 7 .i.c4 'i'c6 1 8
exd7 + i.xd7 1 9 i.f7 + 'it>d8 20 i.e3
As far as I can see, Black is a pawn up
but in total disarray. He does well to last as
long as he does.
20 . . . .l::.c 8 21 'i'f2 .l::.c 7 22 .i.b6 'i'e4 23
.l::.fe 1 'i'h4 24 g3 'i'f6 25 'i'c2 .i.c6 26
i.xc7 + 'it>xc7 27 i.d5 'i'g6 28 l:.e4 'it>d7
29 'i'b3 .l::. c8 30 .l::. d 1 'it>e8 31 'i'c4 i.d7
42
32 'i'b4 .i.c6 33 .l::.g4 i.g5 34 i.xc6 +
.l::.x c6 35 'i'xb7 'i'c2 36 'i'b8 + 'it>e7 37
.l::.f 1 'i'c5 + 38 'it>g2 .l::.c 8 39 'i'b7 + .l::. c 7
40 'i'f3 h6 4 1 h4 1 -0
Game 13
Schlosser-Vyzmanavin
Sochi 1989
1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 'i'c7 6 0-0 tt'lf6 7 'i'e2 d6 8 f4!?
A dangerous move. White delays c2-c4
and waits for Black to commit himself with
the f8-bishop. After 8 ...il..e7 White will
probably transpose back to normal lines
with 9 c4, but what happens if Black tries to
fianchetto?
8 lLlc3 will be discussed under S lLJc3
'ii'c 7 6 .id3 lLJf6 7 'iVe2!? d6 in Chapter 6.
One further idea is 8 lLJd2 g6 9 a4!? il..g7
10 aS 0-0 1 1 lLJc4 lLJbd7 1 2 c3 dS! 1 3 exdS
exdS 1 4 lLle3 lLleS and Black was more than
comfortable in Geller-Vyzmanavin, Mos­
cow 1 989 - White's pieces are not well
placed to battle against the IQP.
8 . . . g6! ?
This looks risky, but Black has hidden re­
sources.
Note that 8 ...'iVb6?! 9 il..e3 'ii'xb2?? loses
to 10 lLlb3, trapping the black queen.
9 f5!
Direct and dangerous. Black must be
careful not to be blown off the board.
 5 i.. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 'fie 7 7 'fl e 2 d 6

1 2...lt:lg4!?. I can only find one example o f

this move, which leads t o immense compli­
cations: 13 'i1Vxg4 lt:lxd4

9 . . . i.g7
It's imperative for Black to seek devel­
opment. After 9 ...gxf5 10 exfS eS 1 1 c4!
(getting a grip over dS) 1 1 ....ie7 12 lLlc2 and now:
lt:lbd7 1 3 lt:lc3 tLlcS 14 lt:le3 lLlxd3 1 5 'ii'xd3 a) 1 4 .id3 lLlxc2 1 5 .ixc2 (15 .l::tc l?
'ii'c S 1 6 b4! 'ii'xb4 17 lLledS lLlxdS 1 8 lLlxdS lLlxe3 1 6 l:txc7 lLlxg4 1 7 l:txg7 ltJeS! 1 8 .ie2
'ii'c S+ 19 .ie3 Black was already on the lLlf7 and the rook is nicely trapped on g7)
verge of losing, Adorjan-Honfi, Hungarian 1 5 ...11Vxc2 16 lLld2 (16 l:tc1 11Vxb2 17 l:txc8+
Ch. 1 973. 'it>d7!! wins for Black) 16 ...'ii'd3 1 7 'i1Vg3 and
1 0 fxe6 fxe6 1 1 .i.c4 White certainly has some compensation for
With the e6-pawn under pressure, Black the pawn.
already looks to be in some trouble. How­ b) 14 lt:la3 lLlxc2 1 5 lLlbS!? with a further
ever, he has a tactical trick to ease his diffi­ split:
culties. b1) 1 5 ...'i*'d7? loses to 16 .ixe6!.
1 1 .ie3 is less dangerous: 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 b2) 15 ... axb5 16 .ixbS+ .id7 1 7 11Yxe6+
lLld2 .id7! 1 3 .ic4 d S 1 4 .ib3 lLlc6 was '1t>d8 1 8 .igS+ '1t>c8 19 .ixd7+ 11Yxd7 20
level in Fleck-Chuchelov, Germany 2000. 'i*'xd7+ 'it>xd7 21 l:tf7+ 'it>e8 (21 ...'1t>c8? 22
1 1 . . . Ci:Jc6! 1 2 i.e3 l:tcl was good for White in Lind-Astrom,
1 2 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 3 lLlc3 0-0 14 .ib3 aS 1 5 Helsingborg 1 991) 22 l:te 7+ 'it>f8 23 l:tfl +
'it>h1 .ia6! 1 6 .ixe6+ 'it>h8 1 7 .ic4 .ixc4 'it>g8 24 .if6! .ixf6 25 l:txf6.
18 'ii'xc4 lLlxe4 was an early draw in De­
graeve-Chuchelov, Bethune 1 999. Let's
continue a few moves: 19 lLlxe4 dS 20 'i1Ve2
l:txf1 + 21 'iiVx fl l:tf8 22 'i1Ve2 l:te8 and, if
anything, Black is better.
The point of Black's previous move is
seen in the line 1 2 lLlxe6? .ixe6 13 .ixe6
ltJd4! 1 4 11Yc4 11Yxc4 1 5 .ixc4 lLlxc2 and
Black wins material.
1 2 . Ci:Jxd4
. .

Of major interest in this line is the fact

that Black can even go onto an immediate
counter-attack here with the enterprising

43
Sicilia n Ka n
Despite the minus piece, White has at
least a draw, but maybe more, for example
25 .. .lha2 (25 ....1:tf8 26 .l:txf8+ �xf8 27
.l:txb7 can only be good for White) 26 .l:f.xd6
�a8 27 .l:txb7 lLle3 28 .l:f.dd7 lLlg4 29 g3
lLle5 30 .l:f.dc7 and White can push the b­
pawn.
b3) 1 5...'ii'c 6! 16 i.xe6 (16 'ii' f4 .l:tf8 1 7
lLlxd6+ �d7!) 1 6. . .lLlxe3 1 7 i.f7+ �e7 1 8
'ii'h 4+ �d7 1 9 'ii'h 3+ �e7 is a draw by
perpetual, as 1 9 ...lLlf5 looks like a very du­
bious winning attempt.
1 3 ..bd4 0-0 1 4 tt:ld2 �d7 1 5 c3
On 1 5 e5 Black should play 1 5 ...ltJh5!.
1 5 . . ..tt:lh5
15 ...d5?! is not to be recommended: 16
i.xf6 dxc4 1 7 i.xg7 �xg7 1 8 l:lxf8 .l:f.xf8 19
'ii'xc4 'ii'xc4 20 lLlxc4 i.c6 21 e5 .l:f.f5 22
.!:tel l::tg5 23 g3 left Black with no compen­
sation for the pawn in D.Belov-Hermans,
correspondence 1 998.
16 'ilfe3
1 6 'ii'g4!? i.xd4+ 17 cxd4 lLlg7! defends
the vulnerable e6-pawn and guarantees
Black equality, Nabours-Edwards, corre­
spondence 1 9 9 1 .
1 6 . . . b5?!
44
Vyzmanavin criticised this move and
suggested 1 6 ...�h8 as an improvement,
assessing the position as unclear.
1 7 i.. b 3 .t>h8 1 8 l:!.ad 1 ? !
1 8 i.xg7+ 'itxg7 1 9 e5! dxe5 20 lLlf3
(Vyzmanavin) gives White a clear edge.
1 8 .. . . tt:lf6 1 9 h3
Now 1 9 e5? can be met by 1 9 ...lLlg4!.
1 9 . . . e5 20 �b6 'ilfb7!
Black has equalised due to the possibility
of pressurising e4 with ... i.c6.
2 1 lLlf3?
21 i.a5!, intending i.b4, is stronger.
21 . . . i.. c6 22 .:!.xd6 tt:lxe4 23 l:!.xc6
The only move. 23 l::tdd 1 ltJg3 24 .l:tf2
lLlf5 25 'ii'c5 l::tac8! is winning for Black.
23 . . .. 'ilfxc6 24 l:!.d1
24 .. . . i.. h 6!
It would have been very easy to miss this
resource. Now Black is clearly better and
goes on to win quite comfortably.
25 'ilfxh6 'ilfxb6 + 26 .t>h2 'ilff6! 27 i.. c 2
'ilff4 + 28 'ilfxf4 l:!.xf4 29 tt:lxe5 l:!.e8 30
tt:lf3 tt:lc5 31 l:td5 tt:la4 32 .t>g3 l:!.f6 33
�xa4 bxa4 34 tt:ld4 a3! 35 bxa3 l:!.e3 +
36 .t>g4 .t>g7 37 l:!.d7 + l:!.f7 38 l:!.xf7 +
'it>xf7 39 tt:lb3 l:!.xc3 40 a4 l:!.c2 0-1
 5 j_ d3 lD f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 7 'ii e 2 d6

Summary
As far as I can see, Games 1 - 5 prove that Black is still very much alive and kicking in 'the
main line'. It's true that White has some dangerous plans, but with expert treatment Black
can hold his own. Of White's alternative plans, I would say that 1 0 i..e 3 (Game 6) has more
chance of keeping an opening edge than either 10 f4 (Game 7) or 9 b3 (Game 8).
Classical development with 8 ..i..e 7 (Games 9- 1 1) has perhaps been unfairly neglected in
.

recent times (perhaps due to some high-proftle losses) and I believe these systems are also
fully playable for Black. It must be added, though, that Black has to be especially careful not
to be mowed down on the kingside in some lines. Special attention to correct move order is
required here.

1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 lDf6 6 0-0 'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 c4 (D)

8 f4 - Game 13
8 . g6
. .

8 ...i..e 7
9 ciJc3 - Game 9
9 b3 0-0 10 i..b2 lt::lb d7
1 1 ciJc3 - Game 1 0; 1 1 ciJd2 - Game 1 1
8 ...ciJbd7 - Game 12.
9 lDc3
9 b3 - Game 8.
9 . . . ..tg7 1 0 l:l.d1
1 0 f4 - Game 7; 10 i..e3 - Game 6
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 lDf3 (D) lDc6
1 1 ... ciJbd7 - Game 5
1 2 h3
12 i.. f4 - Game 4
1 2 . . . lDd7 1 3 ..te3
13 i.. f4 - Game 3
1 3 . . . b6
13 ... ciJde5 - Game 2
1 4 l:l.ac 1 (D) - Game 1

8 c4 1 1 ttJf3 14 'nac 1

45
 CHAPTER TWO I
5 i.d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 'JJIJc 7 :
Seventh Move Alternatives

1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6 5 ..td3 �c7 6 0-0 tt:lt6 7 �e2 ..tc5!?

5 ..td3 tt:lt6 6 0-0 �c7
In this chapter we deal with alternatives
for White to 7 'ir'e2 and alternatives for
Black after 7 'ir'e2.
Black's choices are restricted after 7 'ii'e 2
as he generally feels obliged to do some­
thing about the 'threat' of e4-e5. The two
options we shall look at here are 7 ...�c5!?
(Game 1 4) and 7...�d6!? (Game 1 5).
White's options at move 7 are much less
restricted. The most important of these is
the immediate setting up of the Maroczy
Bind with 7 c4 (Games 1 6- 1 7). Of course
Black can simply comply with 7 ... d6, most This move crops up an awful lot in the
probably transposing at some point to lines Kan (its most popular form is the 5 i.d3
considered in Chapter 1 . However, 131ack .tc5 - see Chapter 4). The idea is to drive
also has the important independent idea of White's knight away from d4 to an 'inferior'
7 .. .'�Jc6! and it's this move we shall study square (usually b3) before deciding on
here. where to put the bishop. We will also see
Also in this chapter we shall take a look many examples of a very similar idea involv­
at 7 'it>h 1 (Game 1 8) and 7 f4 (Game 1 9), ing ... ifd8-b6 and, after lbb3, simply drop­
while less important options for White are ping the queen back to c7.
discussed in the notes to Game 1 9. The only reason this particular move or­
der is not more popular is that it allows
Game 14 White to play an early e4-e5, hitting the f6-
Vujanovic-Verdier knight.
Comspondence 2000 8 tt:lb3
In general this is the most popular re­
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6 sponse to an early ... i.c5. White regains the

46
 5 1J.. d3 li:J f6 6 0 - 0 1Wc 7 : S e v e n th M o v e A lt e r n a tives
tempo lost on moving the knight again by
attacking the cS-bishop. The downside to
this move is that the knight is slightly less
influential on b3 than it is on d4; the advan­
tage is that it is also much less vulnerable on
b3.
8 �e3 gives Black fewer problems. At
some point White usually cannot make any
progress without offering the exchange of
dark-squared bishops and this eases Black's
defensive task. After 8 ...d6 9 ltJc3 we have
transposed to a line srudied in Chapter 6.
B . . . i.a7
8... �e7?! 9 eS! ltJdS 1 0 c4! ltJb4 11 �f4
ltJxd3 1 2 'iWxd3 ltJc6 1 3 ltJc3 left Black pas­
sively placed in Tong Yuanming-I.Gurevich,
Singapore 1 990. The game continued
13 ...gS!? 14 �g3 hS 1 S h3 h4 16 �h2 ltJxeS
17 'iWe2 f6 18 cS! b6 19 cxb6 'iWxb6 20
�xeS fxcS 21 'iWxeS �f8 22 �ad1 �b7 23
ltJe4 and Black was left with many weak­
nesses.
9 e5!?
The only way to 'punish' Black for his
move order. Black has allowed c4-cS and so
White goes ahead.
9 �e3 �xe3 10 'iWxe3 d6 leads to similar
lines to those discussed in Chapter 4, as
does 9 c4 and 9 ltJc3.
9 . . li:Jd5 1 0 c4
. 1 3 ...gS! (Gurevich), for example:
White continues to harass the knight. I f
White i s looking for a n alternative way to
play, I quite like the look of 10 ltJa3!? with
the intention of ltJc4 and preparing to an­
swer lO ... bS with 1 1 c4!.
10 . . . li:Jb4 1 1 i.f4 li:Jxd3
1 1 ...ltJ8c6?! 12 ltJ1d2 ltJxd3 13 'tixd3 fS
1 4 'iWg3 0-0 1 S cS! left Black in an uncom­
fortable position in Kudrin-I.Gurevich,
Philadelphia 1 990 - Black's bishops arc
finding it hard to breathe. In the game the
American GM Ilya Gurevich tried to rem­
edy the siruation with l S ... bS but after 1 6
cxb6 �xb6 1 7 :act 'tib8 1 8 ltJc4 �c7 1 9
h 4 White maintained a strong positional
bind.
In a later game, Gurevich tried to im­
prove on Black's play with 1 1 ...fS!? although
after 12 ltJ 1 d2 (12 ltJc3 may be even
stronger; after 12 ... ltJxd3 13 'tixd3 0-0 14
�acl ltJc6 1S �fc 1 White is ready to play
c4-cS without giving up control of the ciS­
square) 1 2...ltJxd3 13 'ii'xd3 0-0 14 cS ltJc6
1 S ltJc4 ltJe7 1 6 ltJd6 ltJg6 1 7 'iVg3 b6 1 8
cxb6 �xb6 1 9 �acl White was better,
Favaro-I.Gurevich, Maringa 1 991 .
1 2 11i'xd3 f6
Black must react quickly or else the eS­
pawn will promise White a continual bind
on the position.
1 3 11i'f3
After 1 3 'ii'g3 Black can hit out with
a) 14 �d2 'ii'x eS 1 S 'ii'x cS fxcS 1 6 �xgS
ltJc6 and Black's centre pawns control some
important squares.
b) 14 ltJc3!? d6! (14...gxf4 isn't men­
tioned by Gurevich, but 1 S 'ii'g7 �f8 16
exf6 ltJc6 1 7 ltJdS! 'ii'd6 1 8 �fc 1 , intending
�ad 1, looks very dangerous for Black) 1 S
ltJe4 gxf4 and Gurevich assesses this as
unclear. Let's take things a bit further: 1 6
ltJxf6+ Wf7!? 1 7 'ii'xf4 dxeS 1 8 ltJdS+ (18
'ii'h6!?) 18 ...exf4 1 9 ltJxc7 b6 20 ltJxa8 �b7
21 ltJc7 l:tc8 22 ltJxe6 Wxc6 23 �fcl + Wf7
24 �acl ltJd7 and I prefer Black's two bish­
ops to the rook and two pawns. Black's
dark-squared bishop can emerge via b8.
1 3 . . . fxe5 1 4 11i'h5 + g6 1 5 11i'xe5
47
Sicilian K a n
1 5 i.xe5?? d6 wins material for Black.
1 5 . . . 'i'xe5 1 6 .txe5 0-0 1 7 lt:\c3
An improvement over 17 tLl 1 d2 bS 1 8 c5
i.b7 19 i.d6 (Ulibin-I.Gurevich, Santiago
1 990), and now Gurevich gives 1 9 ...l:tc8! 20
a4 b4 as being equal. Black can play ... i.dS
and can follow up with the manoeuvre
...tLlc6-d8-f7.
1 7 . . . lt:\c6
Gurevich considers the pawn sacrifice
17 ... b5!? but rejects it on account of 18 cxb5
axb5 19 tLlxb5 i.a6 20 a4 (Nunn and Galla­
gher stop here, saying that Black doesn't
have enough for the pawn) 20 ... l::t f5
(20...tLlc6 21 i.d6 followed by lLlxa7 [Gure­
vich] simply leaves White a pawn up) 21
i.d4. However, I believe that 21 ...i.xb5 22
axb5 l::txb5 is at least okay for Black as
White cannot really exploit the pin on the a­
file: 23 tLld2 tLlc6 24 i.c3 d5 and Black will
follow up by moving the aS-rook.
Going back a bit, 20 tLlc7 is also impor­
tant: 20 ... i.xf1 (20...tLlc6 21 i.d6 i.xfl 22
l::txfl leads to the same thing) 21 l:txfl tLlc6
22 i.d6 (22 lLlxaB?! lLlxe5 23 tLlc7 tLld3 and
Black regains the pawn) 22...l:tab8
(22 ... l:txf2? 23 l:tx£2 i.x£2+ 24 ..ti>x£2 l:txa2
25 i.a3! traps the rook on a2: 25 ...tLle5 26
tLlb5 lLld3+ 27 ..ti>e2 lLlxb2 28 tLlc t !) 23
i.xf8 ..ti>xf8 and Black has good compensa­
tion for the pawn - White's p1eces arc
somewhat uncoordinated.
1 8 �d6 �f5 1 9 lt:\e4
48
Gurevich assesses this position as slightly
better for White and I agree with this. Po­
tentially Black's bishop pair could prove
useful, but in the short term he has prob­
lems developing on the queensidc.
1 9 . . . b5
Black must try to develop the c8-bishop .
20 �ac1
After this move Black manages to equal­
ise. I prefer 20 c5!?, blocking in Black's
dark-squared bishop.
20 . . . lt:\d4 21 lt:\xd4 .txd4 22 i.a3 �f4
23 lt:\d6 b4! 24 �xb4 �xb2 25 �c2
i.g7 26 g3 l:td4 27 i.c5 l:td3 28 l:tb 1
i.e5 29 l:tb6 a5 30 f4 l:txd6! 31 l:txd6
.txd6 32 .txd6 i.a6 Vz - Vz
Game 15
Magomedov-Khouseinov
Dushanbe 1999
1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6
5 �d3 lt:\f6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 i.d6! ?
A n idealistic move. Black activates his
dark-squared bishop along the h2-b8 diago­
nal but on this occasion it walks into a not­
too-subtle reply by White.
7 ... d5 is the typical Sicilian freeing break.
However, Black is behind in development
so opening the position like this is asking
for trouble. Play continues 8 tLlc3 (8 e5
tLlfd7 9 f4 may also be good for White but
it makes sense to keep the tension) 8 ... tLlc6
 5 i.. d3 li'J f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7: S e v e n th Mo v e A lt e rn a tives
and now:
a) 9 l2Jxc6 bxc6 transposes to a position
which is normally reached via the Taimanov
Variation: 1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l2Jxd4 l2Jc6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 l2Jxc6 bxc6 7 .id3
'ilic7 8 0-0 l2Jf6 9 'ii'e 2 d5 and can also be
reached by the Kan in another way (1 e4 c5
2 l2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 a6 5 l2Jc3 'ii'c7
6 .id3 l2Jc6 7 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 0-0 d5 9 'ii'e 2
l2Jf6) . This will be studied in Game 57.
b) 9 .ie3!? with a further split:
b1) 9 ... .ie7 10 exd5 exd5 1 1 l2Jxc6 bxc6
12 .ic5 .ig4 1 3 'ii'e3 .ie6 1 4 f4 .ixc5 1 5
'ii'xc5 'ifa7 1 6 l2Ja4 ..t>d8 1 7 :fe1 l::.e 8 1 8 b4
left White with a pleasant grip on the dark
squares in G.Hernandez-Fernandes, Bu­
caramanga 1 992. The immediate 12 ....ie6
may be stronger.
b2) 9 ... dxe4 10 l2Jxe4 .ie7 1 1 l2Jxc6
'ifxc6 1 2 .id4! and White's development
advantage IS quite apparent, Fercec­
Haldemann, Areo 1 999.
7 ...l2Jc6?! allows White to play e4-e5: 8
l2Jxc6 dxc6 9 eS! l2Jd7 10 .if4 .ie7 1 1 l2Jd2
g5?! 12 .ig3 h5 13 h3 l2Jb6 1 4 l2Je4! and,
with l2Jf6+ to follow, White was well on top
in the game Kalesis-Karatzas, Aegina 1 993.
8 f4!?
Of course! Now the threat of e4-e5
forces Black to move the bishop again.
If White is looking for a quieter way to
an advantage then 8 ..t>h1 isn't bad: 8 ...l2Jc6
9 l2Jxc6 dxc6 10 f4 e5 1 1 f5
and White has an edge, Arnason­
Dizdarevic, Manila Olympiad 1 992. I'll talk
more about this set-up later, but I will say
something here. Note that when compared
to Game 1 6, here White is not hampered by
his own pawn being on c4. There is no out­
post for Black on d4 and the White's light­
squared bishop is more active.
8 . . . i.c5 9 i.e3 'iib 6
All games I found continued with this
pawn-grabbing idea but as far as I can see
it's not at all clear that this is Black's best
option.
I can't find any examples of 9 ... d6!? but
it's certainly not a bad move.
a) 10 l2Jb3 .ixe3+ 1 1 'ii'xe3 would trans­
pose into an reasonable version of the 5
.id3 .ic5 line (Black has lost a move with
... .ie7-d6 but gained it back by playing
... .ic5xe3 rather than ....ic5-a7xe3)
b) 10 l2Jc3 0-0 and we reach a variation
similar to the one seen in Game 54, except
that White is a tempo up. It's not clear
whether this is enough to sway the balance
in White's favour. One point to note is that
1 1 ..t>h 1 b5 12 f5? is answered by the sur­
prisingly strong 1 2 ...'ifa7!.
c) White can also consider ideas such as
10 l2Jd2!? and 10 c4!?, but these are hardly a
refutation of 9 ... d6.
1 0 c3 li'Jc6 1 1 'it>h 1 ! li'Jxd4 1 2 cxd4
i.xd4 1 3 i.xd4 'iix d4 1 4 li'Jc3
Black has won a pawn but that is where
49
Sicilia n Kan
the good news ends. He is heavily behind in
development and has trouble defending all
the weak dark squares in his position. I
would go as far as saying that this line is
only to be recommended for White.
1 4 . . . 0-0
How much trouble Black is in can be
gauged from the following two sidelines.
a) 14 ... d6 15 �ad1 'ifc5 16 e5 dxe5 1 7
fxe5 ltJd7 1 8 ltJe4 'ifxe5 1 9 i.b5!! axb5 20
ltJd6+ 'it>f8 21 l:1xf7+ 'it>g8 22 �xd7! 'iff6
23 'ifxe6 +! 1 -0 Steinbacher-Auchenberg,
Copenhagen 1 994
b) 14 ... h5!? (you cannot be serious!) 1 5 e5
ltJg4 1 6 ltJe4 f6 17 �ad1 'it>e7 1 8 ltJd6 'ii'e3
19 'ii'c 2 fxe5
(Chiburdanidze-Palos, Baden-Baden 1990)
and now I like 20 i.f5! exf4 (or 20 ... ltJh6 21
i.xe6! dxe6 22 'ifg6) 21 i-xg4 hxg4 22 'ifg6
and Black suffers horribly due to his lack of
development.
1 5 �ad 1 'i!Vb4 1 6 e5 lLleB
1 6 ... ltJd5 ruins Black's strucrure and
leaves him devoid of any defenders on the
kingside: 17 a3 'ifc5 1 8 ltJxd5 exd5 1 9 'ii'h 5
g6 20 'ifh6 and the threat of f4-f5 is hard to
deal with.
1 7 a3 'i!Ve7 1 8 lLla4!
Continuing to attack the dark squares.
1 8 . . . 'i!Vd8
Narurally 1 8 ... b5? is met by 1 9 'ife4!.
1 9 �b1 d5!?
A desperate bid for freedom. After
50
1 9 .. J:tb8 20 'ifd3 g6 21 ltJc5 White is in
complete control.
20 exd6 �d7 21 lLlc5 �b5 22 �d3
'ifxd6 23 �xh7 + �hB 24 'i!Ve3 'ife7 25
'ifh3 lLlf6 26 lLle4! �fdB 27 �fe1 �c6
2B lLlg5 �eB
There are two very surpnsmg things
about this position. The first is that it had
all been seen before in a previous game.
The second is White's next move ...
29 .:ta1 ! !
This 'novelty' decides the game. The idea
behind moving the rook back to its home
square is that White requires both rooks to
participate in the attack against the black
king. Thus 29 �a 1 rules out any exchanges!
29 �d3?! �xd3 30 i.xd3+ 'it>g8 31
i.h7+ 'it>f8 32 i.f5 'it>g8 33 i.h7+ 'it>f8 34
i-f5 'it>g8 35 �xe6 'ifc7! allowed Black to
survive in Luther-Barges Mateos, Elista
Olympiad 1 998.
29 . . .�d6 30 �e5! .:.adS 31 �ae 1 'ifc7
32 lLle4! �d 1 33 lLlxf6 �xe 1 +
Other moves also lose:
a) 33 ...'ifxe5 34 i.f5 mate.
b) 33 ...gxf6 34 i.g6+ 'it>g7 35 'ii'h 7+ 'it>f8
36 �xe6! fxe6 37 'ifh8+ 'it>e7 38 'ifg7+
'it>d6 39 �xd 1 + 'it>c6 40 �cl + and White
Wins.
34 lbe 1 gxf6 35 i.f5 + �gB 36 'ifh7 +
'it>fB 37 �xe6 'ifxf4 38 'ifhB + �e7 39
�xf7 + ! �xf7 40 'i!Vh7 + �fB 4 1 'i!Ve7 +
1 -0
 5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7: S e v e n th Mo ve A l tern a tives
Game 16
Smirin-Goldin
Philadelphia 1998
1 e4 c5 2 Ci:JfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Ci:Jxd4 a6
5 i.dJ Ci:Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 c4! ?
The main alternative to 7 'ii'e2. White
immediately sets up the Maroczy Bind and
keeps options open regarding the placement
of his queen. If Black now plays 7 ... d6 then
we reach positions very similar to those in
Chapter 1 , except that White has the slight
advantage of being able to choose whether
to play 'ii'e2 or not. This may be particularly
useful for White if Black fianchettoes as
White's queen may then be better placed at
home, where it can bear down on the d6-
pawn.
7 . . . Ci:Jc6!
The negative side of White's previous
move is seen in Black's clever reply. The
move ... l2Jc6 rarely blends in well in a Kan
system but this is an important exception.
Normally in these lines White meets ...l2Jc6
with an exchange of knights, but the fact
that Black has yet to move his d-pawn is a
very positive feature for him.
7 ... �c5!? 8 l2Jb3 �e7 (8....ia7!?) 9 l2Jc3
d6 reaches positions similar to those in
Chapter 4.
8 Ci:Jxc6
For other white possibilities, see Game
1 7.
8 . dxc6!
. .
The point! Black breaks with tradition by
capturing 'away from the centre' but the
ensuing pawn structure holds little fear for
the second player. Black will inevitably fol­
low up with ...e6-e5, leaving a symmetrical
pawn structure with some attractive points
for Black. The first is that he has a ready­
made outpost on the d4-square while White
has no similar one himself. The second fac­
tor is that White's bishop on d3 is 'bad' and
hemmed in by its own pawns. If only White
could put his c-pawn back on c2, then these
problems would disappear. Alas, pawns
cannot move backwards!
White does, however, have compensating
features: he has a slight lead in development
and (after the 1 0th move) a space advantage
on the kingside.
9 f4!
The critical move. White threatens the
space-gaining e4-e5 and forces Black's hand
in the centre.
9 l2Jc3 e5! solves all of Black's problems,
for example:
a) 10 h3 .ic5 1 1 l2Ja4 �d4! 12 c5 .ie6 1 3
.id2 0-0 1 4 'ii'c2 h 6 1 5 l:tad1 l:tad8 1 6 l:tfe1
'ii'e 7 was equal in Maskova-Emms, Menchik
Memorial, Maidstone 1 994.
b) 10 .ie3 l2Jg4! 1 1 .id2 .ic5 12 l2Ja4
�d4! 1 3 c5 .ie6 1 4 'ii'c 2 'ii'e7 1 5 h3 l2Jf6
and Black was happy enough in Carlsson­
Salm, correspondence 1 984. The continua­
tion to this game is worth seeing: 1 6 'iti>h2?!
h5! 17 g3? h4! 18 g4 .ixg4! 19 hxg4 l2Jxg4+
20 'iti>g2 (20 'iti>g1 'ii f6!) 20 ... h3+ 21 'iti>h1
l2Jxf2+ 22 l:txf2 .ixf2 and Black went on to
wtn.
c) 10 'ii'e2 .ie6 (10 ... .ic5 1 1 �e3 .ixe3 12
'iixe3 0-0 is safe and equal) 11 f4 j_c5+ 12
'iti>h 1 .ig4! 1 3 'ii'c 2 (Griinfeld-Hulak, Za­
greb 1 987) and now the general opinion is
that Black should play 13 .. l:td8! (instead of
Hulak's 13 ... 0-0-0), for example:
cl) 14 fxe5 l2Jd7! and ... l2Jxe5.
51
Sicilian Ka n
c2) 14 f5 'ii'd 6 1 5 i.e2 (or 1 5 ll'la4 i.a7
1 6 i.e2 i.xe2 17 'ii'xe2 'ii'd3!) 1 5 .. i.xe2 1 6
lixe2 lid3 and Black can b e happy.
c3) 14 h3 ll'lh5!! 1 5 hxg4 lie7! (Zeller)
and Black has a strong attack, for example
16 g5 ll'lg3+ 17 'it>h2 ll'lxfl + 18 i.xfl exf4
1 9 i.xf4? h6!.
9 . . . e 5 10 f5
The most obvious and only testing move
at White's disposal. White obtains a space
advantage on the kingside and, for the mo­
ment at least, Black's light-squared bishop is
sealed out of the game.
1 0 . . . ..tc5 + 1 1 �h 1
1 1 . . h5!? .
This is certainly Black's most ambitious
move. For the moment Black does nothing
to address the problem of his bishop on c8.
Instead he plans an attack on the dark
squares on the kingside with c5-bishop,
knight and queen.
A more restrained strategy can be seen
with 1 1 ...i.d4 1 2 ll'lc3 h6 and now:
a) 13 i.d2 b6 14 l:tb1 i.b7 1 5 b4 l:td8 1 6
lie2 0-0 was level i n Anagnostopoulos­
Bischoff, Bad Worishofen 1 993.
b) 13 ll'le2 c5 1 4 l:tb1 i.d7 (14...b6!?) 1 5
ll'lxd4 cxd4 1 6 b4 and White was slighdy
better in Pyhala-Bischoff, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 1 988. Depending on where Black
puts his king, White has chances to attack
on either side of the board. It should be
noted, though, that Bischoff was happy to
52
repeat this line as in note 'a' five years later.
Maybe he has something up his sleeve.
1 2 lbd2
White's knight comes to help out on the
kingside, where White is devoid of pieces.
The main alternative is 12 ll'lc3 tt'lg4 1 3
li e ( 1 3 lie2 'ii'd8 1 4 .ic2? ll'lxh2!, Taylor­
Mortazavi, British League 1 998 is an obvi­
ous example of the tricks Black has in this
line) 13. .. lid8! (a neat switchback; Black
threatens ...lih4 and ... ll'lf2+) and now:
a) 14 lig3!? .if2 1 5 'ii' e (or 1 5 lih3
.td4) 1 5 ... i.d4 16 lig3 i.f2 17 lie i.d4
18 'ii'g3 was a draw by repetition, Surak­
Edwards, correspondence 1 986.
b) 1 4 ll'ld1 lih4 15 h3 b6 16 i.d2 .ib7
17 b4 i.d4 with a further split:
b 1) 18 .ic3 0-0-0? 19 c5! was good for
White in Agnos-Emms, St Albans 1 993, so
Black should instead activate his b7-bishop
with 1 8 ... c5!.
b2) 18 l:tb1 c5! 19 bxc5 i.xc5 20 i.b4
i.d4 and here it's best for White to accept a
draw by repetition after 21 i.c3 .ic5 22
.ib4 as 21 c5? bxc5 22 i.xc5 .ixc5 23
l:txb7 0-0 was good for Black in McDonald­
Emms, British Championship 1 993.
Also possible is 12 i.g5 ll'lg4 13 lie2
lid6 14 .ih4 i.d7 1 5 h3 ll'lf6 1 6 ll'lc3 0-0-0
17 ll'la4 .id4, which was unclear in Casares
Ripoli-Matt, correspondence 1 991 . Fe­
dorowicz suggests 12 ... h4, intending ... ll'lh5.
1 2 . . . lbg4 1 3 'i'e2
 5 i. d3 l"i'J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 : S e v e n th Mo v e A lterna tives
13 . . . �d8
A major alternative for Black here is
13 ...'ii'b 6 and now:
a) 14 g3?! lLlf2+ 1 5 Wg2 lLlxd3! 1 6 'ii'xd3
..id4 1 7 l:lb 1 c5 1 8 a3 ..id7 1 9 b4 ..ia4! and
Black was doing very well in the game
Wolff-Gheorghiu, New York 1 987.
b) 14 h3 lLlf2+ 15 Wh2 'ii'd B 1 6 lLlb3 (16
l2Jf3!?) 16 ...'ii'xd3 1 7 l:hf2 'ii'xe2 18 .l:txe2
..ie7 was equal in Riemersma-Jukic, Graz
1 987
c) 14 lLlf3!? is a suggestion from Byrne
and Mednis. After 1 4... f6?! 1 5 h3 lLlf2+ 1 6
Wh2 lLlg4+ 1 7 Wg3! Black i s forced back,
while 14 ... l2Jf2+ 1 5 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 16 lLlxe5
gives White serious attacking chances for
the small material investment.
1 4 l"i'Jf3! f6
Not a move Black really wants to play
but the e5-pawn needs some protection.
The alternative is 14 ...l2Jf2+ 1 5 l:lxf2 ..ixf2
16 lLlxe5, which again gives White tremen­
dous compensation for the exchange. Play
continues with 16 ... ..ic5 17 ..if4 and now:
a) 17 ... ..id6 1 8 c5! ..ixe5 (or 1 8 ... ..ixc5 1 9
..ic4) 1 9 ..ixe5 0-0 20 ..id6 l:le8 21 'ii'xh5 is
virrually winning for White.
b) 17 ... 'ii'e7 1 8 l2Jf3 g6 with a further
split:
b 1) Estrada Nieto gives the line 1 9 b4
..ixb4 20 'ii'b 2. Now it's true that 20... 0-0?
21 ..ih6 f6 22 ..ixf8 Wxf8 23 lLlh4 is win­
ning for White but, although I would be
reluctant to take the black pieces, I can't
quite find a killer blow for White after
20...l:lg8.
b2) 1 9 fxg6 fxg6 20 e5 'ii' f7 21 ..ig5 ..ig4
22 ..if6 l:lg8 23 l:lft ..ie7 24 h3 ..ixf3 25
l:lxf3 0-0-0 26 c5 'ii'e 8 27 ..ixa6 ..ixf6 28
exf6 bxa6 29 'ii'x a6+ <3;c7 and, instead of
the game continuation of 30 'ii'b 6+ WeB 31
'ii'a 6+ Wc7 32 'ii'a 7+ WeB 33 'ii'a 8+ Wc7
34 'ii'a 7+ 1/z-1/z Estrada Nieto-Strikovic,
Merida 2000, I can't find a defence to 30 f7!,
for example 30...l:ld1 + 31 l:lft l:lxfl + 32
'ii'xfl 'ii' f8 33 'ii' f4+ seems to win quite
comfortably.
1 5 .ic2 �b6 1 6 l"i'Jh4
Now after 16 h3 lLlf2+ (but not 16 ...l2Je3
1 7 ..ixe3 ..ixe3 1 8 b4!) 1 7 Wh2 l2Jg4+ 1 8
Wg3 lLle3! the difference i s that the knight
forks rooks and bishop - Black has success­
fully lost a move to induce White's bishop
to the unfavourable c2-square. Maybe White
should consider 1 5 ..ib1!? .
1 6 . . . l"i'Jf2 + 1 7 l:.xf2 i.xf2 1 8 l"i'Jg6 l:.h7
Black has won the exchange but the rook
on h7 is a terrible piece which will do well
to give itself up for a minor piece.
1 9 c5!? �xc5 20 .ib3 i.d7 21 i.g8 l:.h6
22 i.xh6 % - %
And just as the game was getting excit­
ing! The final position is extremely messy .
Game 1 7
Aseev-Kochyev
Leningrad 1984
1 e4 c5 2 l"i'Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l"i'Jxd4 a6
5 i.d3 l"i'Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 c4 l"i'Jc6 8 i.e3
If White doesn't want to exchange on c6
then this is the most narural way to con­
tinue.
After 8 l2Jf3 Black can continue in ag­
gressive fashion with 8 ... l2Jg4! 9 l2Jc3 (or 9
h3 h5!) and now:
a) 9 ... l2Jd4!? 10 e5!? (10 g3 lLlxf3+ 1 1 'ii'x f3
lLle5 1 2 'ii'e 2 d6 is equal - Ivanchuk)
10 ...l2Jxf3+ 1 1 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 1 2 'ii'g3 with
53
Sicilian Kan
some compensation for the pawn - lvan­
chuk.
b) 9 ... i..e 7 10 i..e 2 b6 1 1 h3 h5 12 g3
liJge5 13 h4 g6 14 i.. f4 d6 was equal in lv­
anchuk-Portisch, European Team Ch., De­
brecen 1 992.
c) 9 ... b6!? and now:
cl) 10 h3?! h5! 1 1 g3 lbge5 1 2 i..e 3 h4!
13 g4 i.d6 14 l:tct liJxf3+ 1 5 'ilt'xf3 liJe5 1 6
'i�Vd1 liJg6
is an excellent example of a successful
Black strategy in Kamsky-I.Gurcvich, New
York 1991 - the dark squares on the king­
side arc dominated by Black.
b) 10 g3! i..b7 1 1 i.. f4 liJge5 is level.
8 . tt:\e5
. .
The most logical move; Black puts pres­
sure on c4, hits the bishop on d3 and gains
time by threatening ...liJg4.
9 h3 b6
In my opinion, this is the most exact
move order - Black prepares to attack the
e4-pawn.
9 ... d6 10 f4 liJxd3 (10 ... liJxc4? 1 1 'ilt'c2!
b5 12 b3) 1 1 'ilt'xd3 i..e7 12 liJc3 0-0 13 a4
b6 14 f5 was slightly better for White in
Yemelin-Shaposhnikov, St. Petersburg 1 996;
Black always has to be careful regarding the
pressure on the e6-pawn.
9 ...lbxc4? walks into a pin after 10 'ilt'c2!
b5 1 1 b3.
10 f4
Or 1 0 lbc3 i.. b7 1 1 l:tct i..b4 1 2 i.f4
54
0-0 13 l:te1 i..d 6!? 1 4 i..g5 l:tac8 1 5 i.ft
lbg6 1 6 liJf3 i..e7 1 7 i..d3 d6 with equality,
Kaidanov-Kharitonov, Lvov 1 985.
1 0 . tt:\xd3 1 1 1fxd3 i.b 7
. .
1 2 tt:\d2
I prefer the more ambitious 12 lbc3!?,
for example:
a) 1 2...l:tc8 13 e5 liJgB 14 b3 lbe7!?
(14 ...b5!?) 1 5 liJcb5!? axbS 1 6 liJxb5 'ii'c 6 1 7
liJd6+ 'it>dB 1 8 liJxf7+ 'it>e8 1 9 liJd6+ 'it>d8
20 l:t£2 liJf5 21 liJxf5 (21 liJf?+? 'it>c7 22
lbxh8 lbxe3 23 'ilt'xe3 i.c5 24 'ilt'g3 l:txh8 is
good for Black) 21 ... exf5 22 'ilt'xf5 with a
very complex position - Black is very disor­
ganised but has the long-term advantage of
that extra bishop.
b) 12 ... i.b4 13 e5 i..xc3 14 'ilt'xc3 liJe4 1 5
'ilt'a3 (or 1 5 'ilt'b4 aS! 1 6 'ilt'a3 'ilt'xc4 1 7 l:!.act
'ilt'b4) 15 .. . f5 and Black can continue with
. ..'it> f7.
1 2 . . ...tb4 13 tt:\4b3 i.xd2 14 tt:\xd2 1t'c6
1 5 .l:!.fe1 tt:\xe4 1 6 tt:\xe4 1fxe4 1 7 1fxe4
..txe4 Y:z-Y:z
After 1 8 i..xb6 the position is completely
equal.
Game 18
Haii-Hellsten
Umhamn 1998
1 e4 c5 2 tt:\t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:\xd4 a6
5 i.d3 tt:\t6 6 0-0 1fc7 7 'it>h 1
A very flexible move. White eliminates
 5 .1t.. d3 lD f 6 6 0 - 0 'fi c 7 : S e v e n th Mo ve A lterna tives
annoying tactics by removing his king from
the a7-gl diagonal and prepares £2-f4, while
keeping his options open regarding other
pieces and pawns. If there is a negative side,
then it's that 'iit h 1 is hardly a developing
move and Black, if he wishes, can strike
immediately in the centre.
7 . ..d5!?
This takes play away from a 'typical' Kan
and into independent lines. Normally Black
would find it difficult to justify this idealistic
freeing advance quite so early in the Kan,
but his argument runs that White has effec­
tively 'lost' a tempo with 'iitg t-hl , so why
not? Psychologically, though, many Kan
players would be reluctant to change the
flavour of the position, regardless of
whether Black can achieve equality or not.
If Black wishes to keep a hedgehog struc­
ture then he can play 7 ... d6 8 f4 4Jbd7 and
now:
a) 9 4Jc3 transposes to lines considered
in Chapter 6.
b) 9 c4 with a further branch:
bl) 9 ...�e7 10 tDc3 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 leads
back to positions considered in Chapter 1 ,
where White has already committed his king
to h l .
b2) 9. . .g6?! is hit once again with 1 0 f5! e5
(or 10 ... gxf5 1 1 exfS e5 12 tt:Je6!) 1 1 tDc2
and White was better in Hi.ibner-Lutz,
Bundesliga 1 993. If Black wishes to fi­
anchetto he should play 8 ... g6!, leaving his
e6-pawn defended by the c8-bishop.
8 lDc3
Another major line is 8 exd5 tt:Jxd5
and now:
a) 9 �e4 4Jf6 10 �f3 �e7 is equal -
Hubner.
b) 9 c4 4Jf6 10 tt:Jc3 �e7 1 1 'ii'e 2 0-0 1 2
i.g5 lld8 1 3 4Jb3 4Jbd7 1 4 llacl 4Jf8 1 5
llfel �d7 1 6 h 3 �c6 and Black was fine,
Andersen-Hellsten, Gistrup 1 997.
c) 9 f4 g6! (ECO gives 9 ...�c5 1 0 4Jb3
�d6 1 1 'ii' f3 4Jd7, Pietzsch-Gipslis, Riga
1 959, as equal) 1 0 �e4 4Jf6 1 1 �f3 i.g7 1 2
c 3 0-0 1 3 'Wet 4Jbd7 1 4 �e3 4Jb6 1 5 4Jd2
4Jbd5 and I prefer Black in Herbrechts­
meier-Raupp, Eppingen 1 988 - the kingside
is rock-solid.
d) 9 lle t �e7 10 c4 4Jf6 1 1 4Jc3 �d7 1 2
�g5 tDc6 1 3 4Jf5!? ( 1 3 �xf6 gxf6! and
Black will castle queenside) 13 ...exf5 1 4
4Jd5 tDxd5 1 5 cxd5 0-0 1 6 �xe7 tDxe7 1 7
llxe7 'ir'd6 1 8 llel 'ii'xd5 1 9 .1xa6 .1c6 20
'ii'xd5 was agreed drawn in Zapata-Urday
Caceres, Americana 1 997.
Another idea for White is 8 tDd2 4Jbd7
(8... dxe4 9 tt:Jxe4 transposes to the text) 9
exd5 tt:Jxd5 10 c4 tD5f6 1 1 tt:Je4!? tDxe4 1 2
�xe4 4Jf6 13 �c2!? 'ir'xc4 ( 1 3. . .�c5 is the
safe option) 14 �g5 �c5 1 5 4Jf3 and White
has some compensation for the pawn, Sul­
skis-C.Horvath, Budapest 1 994.
8 . dxe4 9 liJxe4 liJbd7 1 0 b3
. .
10 c4!? transposes to Sulskis-C.Horvath
55
Sicilia n Kan
above.
10 ltJxf6+!? ltJxf6 reaches a similar posi­
tion to one from the French Defence (1 e4
e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJd2 c5 4 exd5 11i'xd5 5 ltJgf3
cxd4 6 �c4 'Wd6 7 0-0 ltJf6 8 ltJb3 ltJc6 9
ltJbxd4 ltJxd4 10 ltJxd4 a6 1 1 �d3 11i'c7),
except that White's king is on h1 rather than
gl . This adds both positive and negative
features to a line which is considered not to
be critical. 1 1 l:te 1 and now:
a) 1 1 ...�d6? is playable in the French line
with the king on g1 but here 1 2 ltJf5! is
much stronger than usual.
b) 1 1 ...�d7 12 'Wf3!, intending �f4, is
uncomfortable for Black.
c) 1 1 ...i.c5! 12 ltJf5?! 0-0 13 ltJxg7 �xg7
1 4 'iWd2 is refuted by 1 4...ltJg8! 1 5 'i/Vg5+
�h8 1 6 �f4 �d6, while 1 2 ltJf3 simply
leaves f2 hanging - a negative feature of
�hl . Instead White should play 1 2 c3 and
now 1 2...�d7 1 3 'iWf3 ( 1 3 �g5 0-0-0!?; 1 3
'ife2!?) 1 3...�xd4 1 4 cxd4 �c6 looks equal.
1 0 . . . �e7 ! ?
1 0. . .ltJxe4! 1 1 i.xe4 ltJf6 1 2 �f3 �d6
looks perfectly acceptable for Black.
1 1 �b2 tt'lxe4 1 2 �xe4 tt'lf6 1 3 i.d3
..td7 1 4 l:!.e1
1 4 . . .h 5 ! ?
An idea borrowed from the same French
Defence variation quoted above. Black
plans ...ltJg4, which is even stronger than
usual due to the threat to the f2-pawn.
1 5 'ife2
56
More ambitious is 15 h3!? and now:
a) After 15 ... ltJg4? White can safely take
the knight: 1 6 hxg4 hxg4+ 17 �g1 'iWh2+
1 8 �fl 'ifh 1 + 1 9 �e2 'iWxg2 20 l:tg1 and
Black doesn't have enough for the piece.
b) 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 16 ltJf5!? exf5!? 17 l:txe7
ltJg4! 1 8 'iWg1 ! (18 hxg4 hxg4+ 19 �g1
ir'h2+ 20 �fl ir'd6! wins for Black - 21
l:txd7 l:thl + 22 �e2 ir'e6+) 18 ...ir'c5 1 9
l:te2 f4 20 l:tae 1 !, preparing 21 f3 ltJe3 22
�c l , and Black seems to be running out of
tricks. Instead of 16 ... exf5, the line 1 6 ... i.f8!
17 �e5 ir'c5 1 8 ltJd4 �d6 is safe for Black.
1 5 . . . tt'lg4 1 6 g3
16 ltJf3?! is answered by 16 ... �c6!, for
example 1 7 ltJe5? f6! 1 8 �g6+ �f8 and
Black wins.
1 6 . . . 0-0-0
A very sharp pos!Uon has arisen, but
counterplay on the kingside gives Black a
full share of the chances. In the game a tac­
tical sequence soon forces an equal ending.
1 7 h3 �c5! 1 8 c3 e5 1 9 hxg4 hxg4 +
20 'it>g 1 exd4 21 cxd4 l:!.de8 22 'ifc2
l:!.xe 1 + 23 l:!.xe 1 ..td6 24 'ifxc7 + 'tixc7
25 d5 l:!.h5 26 .l:lc1 + 'tid8 27 .txg7
l:!.xd5 28 ..te4 l:!.d2 29 ..txb7 Y2 - Y2
Game 19
C .Koch-Fanghui Feng
Comspondence 2000
1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6
 5 JJ.. d3 t:D f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 : S e v e n th Mo v e A lterna tives
5 JJ.. d 3 t:Df6 6 0-0 'iic 7 7 f4
A very aggressive move - White immedi­
ately goes for a kingside launch, but allows
Black to pin the knight on d4 to his king.
Here's a summary of other seventh move
alternatives for White:
a) 7 lLlc3 transposes to Chapter 6.
b) 7 b3 d6 is likely to transpose to lines
considered in Chapter 1, for example 8 i.b2
t:Llbd7 9 c4 g6 10 lLlc3 i.g7 1 1 'ii'e 2 0-0 and
we have reached Short-Sax (Game 8).
c) 7 lLld2 with the plan of f2-f4 and
lLl2f3 is interesting, but shouldn't be threat­
ening: 7 ... d6 8 a4!? (It's too late to change
your mind and fianchetto: 8 b3?? 'ii'c 3! is
embarrassing. Also 8 f4 g6! 9 lD2f3 i.g7 1 0
'ii'e 1 lLlbd7 1 1 i.d2 0-0 1 2 'ifh4 eS 1 3 fxeS
dxeS 1 4 lLlb3 lLlhS! was fine for Black in
Fusthy-Hulak, Berlin 1 988) and now:
cl) 8 ...g6 9 b3! i.g7 (9 ...'iWc3 doesn't
work now: 10 .l:tb1 'ii'xd4 1 1 i.b2 regains
the piece with a large advantage) 10 i.a3
0-0 1 1 lLlc4 l%.d8 1 2 i.b4 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6
'ii'xc6 14 i.aS l1e8 1 5 lLlb6 l1b8 was agreed
drawn in Kuzmin-Vyzmanavin, Leningrad
1990 but without pointing to anything ob­
vious, I'm suspicious of Black's play here.
c2) 8 ... b6 9 f4 i.b7 10 'ii'e 2 lLlbd7 1 1
lLl2f3 lLlcS! 1 2 eS dxeS 1 3 fxeS lLlxd3 1 4
cxd3 t:Lld5 1 5 Wh1 i.cS 1 6 lLlb3 i..e 7 1 7 aS
0-0 and Black was fine in Pablo Marin-Vehi
Bach, Tarrassa 1 989.
d) i.e3 dS!? (as with 7 Wh1 , Black can if
he wishes aim for the French structure; the
bishop is rather clumsily placed on e3 in this
instance) 8 lLlc3
see following diagram
and now:
d1) 8... e5?! (this wins a piece but the
price is high) 9 lLlxdS lLlxdS 10 exdS exd4
11 i.xd4 i.e7! (1 1 ...f6 12 'iWhS+ Wd8 1 3
.l:tfe1 i..d 6 1 4 .l:te3 gave White a very strong
attack, Hawelko-Mokry, Polanica Zdroj
1986) 12 'iWhS 'ii'f4 1 3 i.xg7 i.g4 14 'ii'e S
'i'xeS 15 i..x eS f6 16 i.. f4 when White's
three pawns are worth slightly more than
Black's knight, Kasimdzhanov-Kagirov,
Uzbekistan Championship 1 993.
d2) 8 ... dxe4! 9 lLlxe4 lLlbd7 1 0 lLlxf6+
lLlxf6 and again we transpose into a position
normally reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 t:Lld2
cS 4 exdS 'ii'x dS 5 t:Llgf3 cxd4 6 i.c4 'ii'd6 7
0-0 lLlf6 8 t:Llb3 lLlc6 9 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4 10
lLlxd4 a6 11 i.d3 'ii'c 7, except White has
the extra move i.c1 -e3. It's debatable
whether the bishop is much better here than
on c l : 1 1 'ii' f3 i.d6 1 2 h3 0-0 13 .l:tad1 i.d7
14 .l:tfel .l:tae8 1 5 i.gS i.eS 1 6 i.. f1 lLldS 1 7
c 3 bS 1 8 'iWe4 i..h 2+ 1 9 W h 1 i.. f4! and
Black had equalised in Ernst-Lau, Dort­
mund 1 992.
7 . . . JJ.. c 5
It seems only natural to pin the knight.
7 ... d6 is also possible when White can
choose between 8 c4, with possible transpo­
sitions to Chapter 1 (although White has yet
to commit his queen to e2), or 8 lLlc3 with a
transposition to Chapter 6.
8 c3 t:Dc6
Inviting White to sacrifice a pawn.
8... d6! is the safest response: 9 �h1 eS
(or 9 ...lLlc6 10 lLlb3 i..a7 1 1 c4 [Galliamova
Ivanchuk-Ioseliani, Groningen 1 997] and
now 1 1 ...0-0 is equal) 1 0 lLlb3 (or 10 fxeS
dxeS 1 1 lLlf5 i..x fS 1 2 l:txf5 lLlbd7) 1 0...i..a7
1 1 'ii'f3 lLlbd7 1 2 c4 0-0 1 3 lLlc3 exf4 (Sax­
Dizdarevic, Sarajevo 1 985) and now Diz­
darevic gives 14 i..x f4 lLleS 1 5 i..x eS dxeS
57
Sicilia n Ka n
as being equal.
9 'it>h 1
9 eS!? is more forcing:
a) 9 ...tt'lxd4 10 cxd4 i.xd4+ 1 1 Wh 1
tt'ldS 1 2 i.e4 - see the note to White's 1 1 th.
b) 9 ... tt'ldS 10 Wh 1 ! (ECO gives 10 i.e4?!
d6 1 1 i.xdS exdS 12 exd6 i.xd6 13 �el +
tt'le7 1 4 1f f3 0-0 as good for Black, Sax­
Bellon Lopez, Graz 1 984, but I believe 1 0
Wh 1 i s stronger) 1 0...d6 ( 1 0... tt'lxd4 1 1 cxd4
i.xd4 transposes to the note to White's
1 1 th move) 1 1 tt'lxc6 bxc6 12 1We2 0-0 1 3
tt'ld2 fS 1 4 exf6 tt'lxf6 1 S tt'lf3 a S 1 6 i.d2
i.d7 1 7 �ae 1 was a bit better for White in
Mokry-Vyzmanavin, Tilburg 1 994. The
game continued 1 7 ...�ae8 1 8 i.c2 �e7 1 9
tt'lgS d S 20 tt'lf3! and the knight was ready
to jump into the eS-outpost.
9 . . . tLlxd4
Black still has a chance to play it safe
with 9 ... d6, transposing to the note to
Black's 8th move.
1 0 cxd4 .i.xd4
1 1 tLld2!
I believe this is the strongest move here,
but 1 1 eS is also important due to transposi­
tional reasons: 1 1 ...tt'ldS 1 2 i.e4 i.cS
(1 2 ... 1VcS!? is possible, but not 12 ...tt'le3? 1 3
1fxd4! tt'lxfl 1 4 1fd1 and the knight is
trapped) 1 3 i.xdS exdS 14 1ixdS 0-0 1 S
�d1 b S 1 6 tt'lc3 i.b7 1 7 1fxd7 1ib6 1 8
tt'ldS i.xdS 1 9 1ixdS �ad8 20 1f f3 �xd 1 +
2 1 1fxd1 l:td8 22 i.d2 i.b4 23 i.xb4
58
�xd1 + 24 l:txd1 was a level ending in Cam­
pora-Costa, Swiss League 1 99S, but I prefer
the more ambitious 14 tt'lc3! d4 1 S tt'le4.
1 1 . . .0-0?
Stronger is 1 1 ... i.cS, although following
12 eS tt'ldS 1 3 tt'le4 i.e7 1 4 i.d2 bS 1 S a4
b4 1 6 aS i.b7 1 7 1fhS i.c6 1 8 �fc l , White
has more than enough compensation,
Lupu-Ionescu, Romanian Ch., 1 992.
1 2 e5 tLld5 1 3 lLlf3 tLle3
13 ... i.a7 allows a 'Greek Gift' sacrifice
with 14 i.xh7+! Wxh7 1 S tt'lgS+ Wg6 (or
1 S ...Wg8 1 6 1WhS 1Wc2 1 7 fS!) 1 6 1Wg4 fS 1 7
1ih4 and White has a clear advantage.
1 4 .ixe3 .ixe3 1 5 i.xh7 + ! 'it>xh7 1 6
tLlg5 + 'it>gB 1 7 'ii'd 3 g6 1 8 'ii'x e3
White has a strategically winning position
due to the weakness of Black's king and the
dark squares all over the board.
1 8 . . . 'it>g7 1 9 l:l.ac1 'ii'd B 20 l:l.fd1 b5 2 1
'ii'd 4 l:thB 2 2 'it> g 1 l:tbB 2 3 l:l.c5 l:l. h 5 24
'ii'd 3 'ii'h B 25 l:l.c7 'ii'd B 26 l:l.dc1 aS 27
h3 l:th4 28 'ii'g 3 l:th5 29 'ii'e 3 .l:!.aB 30
'ii'c 5 .:.hs 31 'ii'x b5 .:.h4 32 g3 l:l.h5 33
'ii'a4 .l:!.xg5 34 fxg5 'ii'x g5 35 'ii'f4 'ii'xf4
36 gxf4 .ta6 37 l:l.xd7 i.b5 38 l:l.b7 .teB
39 �f2 �h6 40 b3 a4 41 b4 l:l.dB 42
li;e3 a3 43 l:l.a7 li;hS 44 l:l.xa3 g5 45
fxg5 li;xg5 46 'it>e4 f5 + 4 7 exf6 li;xf6
48 l:l.f 1 + li;e7 49 .:.a7 + l:l.d7 50 l:l.xd7 +
li;xd7 51 a4 li;c7 52 b5 li;b6 53 l:l.f6
li;a5 54 .l:be6 .i.d7 55 li;d5 li;xa4 56 b6
.tcB 57 l:l.e7 1 -0
 5 i. d3 l'i:J f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 : S e v e n th Mo ve A lterna tives

Summary
Both 7 ...i.c5 and 7 ... i.d6 (Games 1 4- 1 5) are probably worth the occasional outing but I
wouldn't advise employing them as 'stock' defences. 7 c4 has received some stick in the
popular press and Black's results have been encouraging, but I believe that Games 1 6- 1 7
show that Black must still play accurately t o achieve a reasonable position. These lines arc
less explored than those in Chapter 1 and independent srudy will pay dividends for both
Black and White.

1 e4 c5 2 l'i:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'i:Jxd4 a6 5 i.d3 l'i:Jf6 6 0-0 'iic 7 7 'iie 2

7 c4 ltJc6
8 i.e3 - Game 1 7
8 ltJxc6 dxc6 (D) - Game 1 6
7 'it>h l - Game 18
7 f4 (D) - Game 19
7 . . . i.c5 - Game 14
7 ... i.d6 (D) - Game 15

8 . . . dxc6 7 f4 7 . . . i.d6
 CHAPTER THREE
5 ..td3 tiJf6 6 0-0 d6
1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6
5 ..td3 ltlf6 6 0-0 d6
In this chapter we shall be studying
Black's main sixth move alternative, which
is 6 ... d6. As well as this, we will take a brief
look at other sixth moves for both White
and Black.
Let's go through the opening moves
agam.
1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6
5 ..td3 ltlf6 6 0-0
It's quite easy to skip past other sixth
move options for White, concentrating
solely on 6 0-0 (even the usually compre­
hensive ECO is guilty of this). There are,
however, some tricky alternatives which, by
using clever move orders, attempt to steer
the game into lines Black may be wishing to
avoid.
a) For 6 c4, sec 5 c4 tDf6 6 ..td3 in Chap­
ter 9.
b) 6 tDc3 is an important transpositional
move. 6 .. .'ific7 would then transpose into
lines discussed in Chapter 6. If Black wishes
instead to steer the game into variations
discussed in Chapter 7, he should try
6 .. .'ilib6 although I have to say that there
has been very little practical experience with
this move order (those playing 5 ..td3 nor­
mally wish to leave the option open of mov-
60
I
ing the c-pawn) . The other line to consider
is 6 tbc3 d6, which is closely linked to the
Sicilian Scheveningen and indeed can be
reached by this move order (1 e4 c5 2 tbf3
d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tiJf6 5 tbc3 e6 6
..td3!? a6). After 7 0-0 the move 7 . . .b5!?
keeps a Kan flavour and is studied in Chap­
ter 8 under the move order 5 tDc3 b5 6
..td3 d6 7 0-0 lDf6.
c) 6 f4!? is another tricky move (I can
only find eleven examples of this in my
database of over 22,000 Kan games):
6 ... ..tc5!? (6 ... d6 is normal; after 7 0-0 we
transpose to the note to White's 7th move)
7 tDb3 ..ta7 8 tDc3 d6 9 'ilif3 tbc6 1 0 g4
tbd7 1 1 g5 b5 1 2 h4 ..tb7 led to something
unusual in the game E.Berg-Hellsten, Ron­
neby 1 998. In this type of position Black's
bishop is normally on e7 (or perhaps, with
... g7-g6, g7) but not on a7. Nevertheless,
with Black probably castling quccnside, this
also looks perfectly satisfactory for him.
d) 6 'ilie2!? virtually forces 6 ... d6 due to
the threat of e4-e5. A fter 7 0-0 we reach
normal lines except that the price of forcing
Black into an early ... d7-d6 is that White has
committed his queen to c2. Independent
lines can be reached if White castles on the
queenside (this is very rare in the Kan) : 7 f4
g6 8 tbf3 ..tg7 9 tbc3 'i!ic7 10 ..td2!? 0-0 1 1

0-0-0 lL'lc6 1 2 l:the1 b5 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5
lL'ld7 15 �f4 �b7 16 '1t>b1 lL'lc5 and Black
looks to be in perfectly good shape here,
Rowson-Spraggett, Edmonton 2000.
6 . . . d6
Apart from 6 ... 1Vc7 (see Chapters 1 and
2) and 6 ... d6 (the main subject of this chap­
ter) Black doesn't really have too much
choice:
a) 6 ... d5?! is dubious. After 7 e5 the most
narural retreat loses: 7 ... lL'lfd7? 8 lL'lxe6 fxc6
9 1Vh5+ g6 10 i.xg6+!.
b) 6...�c5 7 lL'lb3 �a7, trying to trans­
pose into ...�c5 lines where White is com­
mitted to castling kingside, suffers from the
fact that it allows White to hit the f6-knight:
8 e5 lL'ld5 and now 9 1Vg4 emphasises
Black's bare-looking kingside. It's very rare
that Black can get away with allowing White
an early knight-hitting e4-e5.
c) 6 ... e5?! is a very cheeky move; Black
decides to play a Najdorf-srylc position a
whole tempo down! However, it has been
played a few times, notably by Romanishin.
7 lL'lb3 d6 8 c4 �c7 9 lL'lc3 0-0 (Computer P
ConNers-Romanishin, Lippstadt 1 999) and
now, instead of the machine's choice of 1 0
lL'ld5, I prefer one of 1 0 f3, 1 0 �e3 o r 1 0
i.e2, all of which give White some edge.
7 c4
For 7 f4 sec Game 27. After 7 lL'lc3,
7 ...b5 transposes to a position reached in
Chapter 8 while 7 ... 1Vc7 leads to Chapter 6.
5 i. d3 CiJ f6 6 0 - 0 d6
7 . . . i.d7
This move, with the idea of following up
with ... lL'lc6, has become quite popular in
recent years, having been taken up by Kan
specialists Rublcvsky and Milov. Thus four
games in this chapter arc devoted to
7...�d7.
The fianchetto with 7 ...g6 is srudicd in
Game 24, while the classical 7 ... �e7 is stud­
ied in Games 25 and 26. Other seventh
move alternatives for Black are studied in
the notes to Game 25.
8 CiJc3 CiJc6 9 CiJxc6
By far the most popular move. White's
only real alternative, 9 �e3, is discussed in
Game 23.
9 . . . .ixc6
This is the starting position for Games
20-22.
Game 20
Ulibin-Milov
Frankfurt (rapid) 1999
1 e4 c5 2 CiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 CiJxd4 a6
5 .id3 CiJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 .id7 8 CiJc3
CiJc6 9 CiJxc6 i.xc6 1 0 b3
Another move order employed to reach
the same position at move 12 is 10 1Ve2
�e7 1 1 b3 0-0 1 2 �b2.
1 0 . . . .ie7 1 1 .ib2 0-0 1 2 'iie 2
1 2 f4?! is a bit too early here and allows
Black a rypical break: 1 2. . . b5! (exploiting a
61
Sicilia n Ka n
gain in time associated with ... .id7 / . ..Ci'Jc6
variations; Black has managed to play ... b7-
b5 in one go, having not spent a tempo
playing ... b6 earlier):
a) 1 3 cxbS?! axbS 1 4 'iff3 (or 14 eS dxeS
15 fxeS 'ifd4+!) 14 ...'ifb6+ 15 �ht 'il'b7
and Black has strong pressure against e4,
Konguvel-Kostenko, Calcutta 200 1 .
b) 1 3 'ife2 bxc4 1 4 .ixc4 d S 1 5 .id3
dxe4 16 tt::lxe4 tt::lxe4 17 .ixe4 .ixe4 1 8
'il'xe4 'il'd2 was agreed drawn i n Sanchez
Romero-Sospedra Sebastian, Aragon 1 996.
1 2 . . . ii'a5!
Revealing another pos10ve feature of
forgoing ...b7-b6: the queen has access to
the aS-square. I believe it was the Bosnian
GM Emir Dizdarevic who first played this
move and more recently it has found favour
with both Rublevsky and Milov. One of
Black's main plans here is to swing the
queen across to hS to offer a trade. In gen­
eral, Black's position becomes easier after
an exchange of queens as he doesn't have to
worry about a direct kingside assault by
White.
Alternatives include:
a) 12 ... l:.e8 13 f4 dS!? (13. ..tt::ld7 is safer)
1 4 cxdS exdS 1 5 eS tt::le4 1 6 tt::lxe4! dxe4 1 7
.ixe4 .ibS 1 8 'ifg4?! 'ifd2! 1 9 .ixh7+ when
Black can take a draw with 1 9 ... �xh7 20 e6
'ifxb2 21 'ifhS+ �g8 22 'ifxf7+ �h7 23
'ifhS+ or play on with 19 ...�f8!? as in Ar­
nason-Toshkov, Jurmala 1 987. As irn-
62
provements over 1 8 'ifg4?! , Nunn gives 1 8
'if f3 while I prefer to flick i n 1 8 'ifhS! g6 1 9
'iff3. Both seem to give White good com­
pensation for the small material deficit.
b) 12 ... 'ifb8 13 a4 .:te8 14 .:tact tt::ld7 1 5
f4 .ih4 1 6 .:tdt .if6 was unclear in Nunn­
Bischoff, Dortmund 1 987. Nunn suggests
that the more direct 13 f4 is stronger:
1 3 ...b5?! 14 cxbS axbS 1 5 eS is indeed good
for White.
1 3 l:tad 1
O r 13 f4 'ifhS and now:
a) 14 .:tf3!? with a further split:
at) 14 ... d5?! 15 cxdS .icS+ 1 6 �ht exdS
17 tt::lx dS tt::lx dS 18 exdS .:tfe8? 19 'ifc2
.ixdS 20 .:tg3 i.f8? 21 .:tgS was a quick win
for White in the game Tairi-Astrom, Swe­
den League 2000, but Black was far too
adventurous too soon in the centre.
a2) One idea I like here is 14 ... i.d8!,
planning to redeploy the bishop more ac­
tively on b6 (yet another hidden advantage
of forgoing ...b7-b6 in this line!). However,
Black must be careful to avoid tactics
against his king: 1 5 �hl ! and now the im­
mediate 1 5 ... .ib6? lands Black in big trou­
ble:
a21) 16 tt::la4? tt::lg4! 1 7 .:th3 tt::l f2 + 1 8
'ifxf2 'ifxh3 1 9 tt::lxb6 'ifxd3 20 tt::lxa8 .:txa8
is fine for Black.
a22) 16 tt::ld S! exdS 17 .ixf6 dxe4 18 l:.g3
and the best Black can do is 1 8...'il'g6 1 9
lhg6 hxg6 20 .ixe4 gxf6, which is pretty

gnm.
Going back to Black's 1 5th move, much
stronger is the prophylactic 1 5 ...l:te8!, plan­
ning to answer 1 6 l:taft with 16 ...d5!. I be­
lieve Black has excellent counterplay in this
line.
b) 1 4 'iWxhS ltJxhS 1 5 i.e2 1 5 ...tt"Jf6 1 6
i.f3 l:tfd8 1 7 l:tadl ltJd7 1 8 i.a3 ltJcS 1 9
l:.d2 b 6 20 'iti> £2 'iti>f8 2 1 l:tfdt 'iti>e8 and
Black has equalised comfortably. In the
game Egger-Milov, Istanbul Olympiad
2000, White now blundered a pawn with 22
eS?! i.xf3 23 gxf3? dxeS 24 fxeS l:txd2+ 25
l:txd2 ltJxb3!.
Black always has to watch out for ltJdS
ideas but here it doesn't work: 13 ltJdS?
exdS 14 exdS ltJxdS 1 5 cxdS 'iWxdS 16 f4
l:tfe8 and Black was just a pawn up in Pe­
runovic-Cabrilo, Herceg Novi 200 1 .
13 . . . 'ii'h 5
Breaking on the queenside with 1 3 ... b5?!
now runs into 14 ltJdS!. It is possible, how­
ever, to delay the offer of the queen ex-
change: 13 ...l:tfe8!? 1 4 a3 l:tac8 1 5 b4 and
only now t S ...'iWhS!.
It does seem worthwhile for Black to
wait if White is simply going to force the
issue with a2-a3 and b3-b4, so maybe White
should contemplate something different on
move 14 and 1 5. Anyway, after 1 S ...'iWhS
White has played:
a) 1 6 f3 (White gains nothing by avoiding
a queen exchange in this manner) 1 6 ...i.d8!
5 i.. d3 l?J f6 6 0 - 0 d6
17 'iW£2 ltJd7 1 8 g4 'ifh3 19 'ifg3 'i!Vxg3+ 20
hxg3 t2Jb6 21 i.e2 i.e7 22 l:td4 l:ted8 23
l:tfd1 i.e8 24 f4 i.f6 25 l:txd6 l:txd6 26
l:txd6 ltJxc4 27 i.xc4 l:txc4 28 eS i.e7 and
Black slowly converted his two bishops
advantage in Zakic-Dizdarevic, Pula 1 990.
b) 16 'iWd2 and now:
b1) 16 ... b5!? 17 cxbS axbS 18 f4?! i.d8
19 l:tf3 i.b6+ 20 'iti>h1 dS 21 exdS exdS 22
i.xbS i.xbS 23 ltJxbS tt"Je4 24 'i!Vd3 ltJ£2+
25 l:tx£2 i.x£2 worked out well for Black in
Dobrovolsky-Toshkov, Primorsko 1 987,
but I prefer 18 f3!, blunting Black's light­
squared bishop. Black must be careful not
to be simply left with a weakness on bS.
b2) 16 ...l:ted8 17 l:tfet i.e8 18 l:te3 'iWgS
1 9 ltJe2 and the players opted for an 'early
bath' in the game Psakhis-Rublevsky, Po­
lanica Zdroj 1 997. It's true that not much is
going on in the final position.
1 4 f3
As I stated before, I don't believe that
White gains much from avoiding the queen
exchange, although Black has nothing to
fear there either: 14 'iWxhS ltJxhS 1 5 i.a3
l:tfd8 and now:
a) 1 6 i.bl tt"Jf4! 1 7 g3 ('/z-1/z Almasi­
Milov, Groningen 1 998) 17 ...ltJg6 1 8 f4 bS
19 l:td2 l:.ab8 20 cxbS axbS 21 i.b4 dS and
Black has equalised.
b) 1 6 eS!? 'iti>f8 (16 ...ltJf4? 17 i.e4! is
good for White) 17 f4 (1 7 i.e2?! is met by
17 ...ltJf4!, intending 1 8 exd6 i.f6!) 17 ... dxe5
63
Sicilian Kan
1 8 .ixe7 + <3i;xe7 19 fxe5 f5 with equality -
Milov.
1 4 . . J:Ue8 1 5 Wh 1 tt:ld7
1 6 i.b 1 ? !
This allows a thematic break, but it's al­
ready difficult to suggest a suitable plan for
White. The natural one is f3-f4, but this
allows an exchange of queens, while 16 ife1
can be met effectively by 1 6 ... b5!.
16 . . . b5! 1 7 cxb5 axb5 18 f4?!
This is like an admission that White's
previous play has been a failure. The result­
ing endgame is good for Black, one of the
reasons being that White always has weak­
nesses on the queenside. These make easy
targets and it means that, unlike Black,
White cannot easily exploit his pawn major­
ity.
I prefer the more ambitious 1 8 b4, which
at least fixes Black's b-pawn.
1 8 . . .'i!f'xe2 1 9 tt:lxe2 tt:lc5 20 e5 dxe5 2 1
�xe5 �e4 2 2 J:ld2 �xb 1 2 3 .l:txb1 f6 24
�d4 l:!.ed8 25 tt:lg3 Wf7 26 l:tbd 1 f5 27
�e5 .l:txd2 28 l:!.xd2 �f6 29 �xf6 Wxf6
30 Wg1 g5 3 1 fxg5 + Wxg5 32 tt:le2 e5
33 .l:td5 J:lxa2 34 J:lxc5 l:txe2 35 Wf 1
.U.b2 36 l1xe5 l1xb3 37 l:!.e7 h5 38 Wf2
b4 39 .l:tg7 + 'it>f4 40 g3 + We5 41 .l:tb7
We4 42 l:!.e7 + Wd5 43 l:!.f7 .l:tb2 + 44
Wf3 J:lxh2 45 .l:txf5 + 'iti>c4 46 l:!.f8 b3 47
.l:tb8 Wc3 48 l1c8 + 'it>d3 49 .l:td8 + Wc2
50 .l:tc8 + 'iti>d 1 5 1 l:ld8 + 'it>c1 52 .l:tc8 +
l1c2 53 l:lh8 l:lc5 0-1
64
Game 21
Lastin-Rublevsky
Moscow (blit0 200 1
Normally one shouldn't take too much
notice of blitz (5 minute) games, but this
particular one is of remarkably good quality
and is also theoretically important.
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6
5 �d3 tt:lf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 tt:lc3
tt:lc6 9 tt:lxc6 ..txc6 1 0 'i!f'e2 i.e7 1 1 .l:td 1
A different approach. White immediately
makes his mark on the half-open d-file.
1 1 . . .tt:ld7
Blocking the d-ftle and thus ruling out
e4-e5 ideas. Alternatively:
a) 1 1 ...0-0?! 1 2 e5! is problematic for
Black, as 1 2... dxe5 allows 1 3 .ixh7+ .
b) 1 1 ...'ilf'a5 1 2 .if4 0-0 1 3 a 3 and now:
b 1) 13 ... .l:.fe8?! 14 h3! (preventing a later
...lt::lg4) 14 ...ifh5 1 5 ife3 ltJd7? (Dolmatov
gives 1 5 ...'ilf'c5 as an improvement but
White is still clearly better after 1 6 'ilf'd2) 1 6
.ie2 ifc 5 1 7 ifg3 'lib6 1 8 b4 lt::lf6 1 9 .ixd6
.ixe4 20 .ie5 20 ... .ig6 21 c5 'lia7 22 'lie3
and White's pieces dominate the board,
Dolmatov-S.Kovacevic, Ubeda 2000.
b2) 1 3 ...'ilf'h5 14 'lixh5 lt::lx h5 1 5 .ie3
lt::l f6 16 f3 lt::ld7 17 .ifl .l:.fd8 1 8 b4 b6 1 9
.l:h2 <31;[8 20 .l:.ad2 (White has a n edge in
this ending; his bishop is much better
placed on e3, where it annoys the b6-pawn,

than it would be on b2 - compare with
Game 20) 20 ...gS?! 21 .if2 f6 22 lt:le2 �fl
23 lt:ld4 .ib7
24 cS!! bxcS 2S lt:lxe6! Wxe6 26 i.c4+ dS
27 l:txdS .ixdS 28 .ixdS+ <io>d6 29 .ixa8+
tic? 30 .idS cxb4 31 l:tcl + <lo>b8 32 axb4
i.xb4 33 l:tc6 aS 34 l:ta6 l:tc8 3S .ig3+
lLleS 36 l:txf6 and White went on to win in
Korneev-S.Kovacevic, N avalmoral 1 999.
c) 1 1 ...'ifb8!? (Fedorowicz prefers this
move to 1 1 ...lt:ld7) 1 2 .i f4 b6 (12... 0-0 1 3
lL'ldS! .ixdS 1 4 cxdS exdS 1 S exdS is a bit
better for White, Emunds-S.Bohm, corre­
spondence 1 993) 1 3 liJdS!? (13 cS!? is also
interesting) 1 3. ..exdS 14 cxdS! .ib7
(14 ... .id7 1 S eS!) 1 S eS 0-0! ( 1 S ... dxeS? 1 6
i.xeS 'ifd8 1 7 .ixf6 gxf6 1 8 d6 is very
strong) 1 6 exf6 .ixf6 1 7 'ife4 g6 1 8 'ifb4
l:td8 1 9 .ie4 aS! 20 'ifxb6 .ia6 21 .ie3 l:te8
22 i.£3 .ixb2 23 l:tab1 'ifxb6 24 .ixb6
i.c3 and Black had equalised in Vokarev­
Ionescu, Bucharest 1 998.
1 2 i-f4 0-0 1 3 l:t.ac1 t:De5
In many ways this is the most natural
move here, but it's not totally obvious that
Black has to block the diagonal: 1 3 ...l:.e8 1 4
.ib1 .igS 1 S .ixgS 'ifxgS 1 6 'ii'd2 (or 1 6
:c2!? 'ii'c S 1 7 l:tcd2 lLleS 1 8 b 3 bS!)
16 ... 'ii'xd2 17 l:txd2 lL'lb6 1 8 b3 lt:lc8 1 9 lt:le2
b6 20 lt:ld4 .ib7 21 a4 Wf8 22 aS bxaS 23
l:ta2 lt:lb6 24 l:txaS and White was just a tiny
bit better in Turov-Kozlov, Decin 1 998.
14 i.. b 1
5 i.. d3 f:D f6 6 0 - 0 d 6
1 4 cS?! releases the tension too soon:
14 ... 'ifb8 1 S cxd6 .ixd6 16 .ig3 l:td8 and
Black is equal, Klovans-Milov, Biel 1 999.
14 . . . 'ii'b8 1 5 a4
1 S .ig3 l:.c8 1 6 cS?! is again premature:
16 ... .ie8 1 7 f4 lt:lg6 18 cxd6 .ixd6 19 eS
i.e? 20 <io>h1 i.c6 21 h4 lt:le7, when Black
has no weaknesses and a nice bishop on c6,
Korneev-Rublevsky, St. Petersburg 1 996.
Instead of 16 cS, ECO gives 16 a4 and as­
sesses this as slightly better for White.
1 5 . . . �c8
1 S ... b6 1 6 i.e3 l:tc8 1 7 b3 .ie8 1 8 h3
lt:lc6 1 9 .if4 lt:leS 1/2-1/2 Lascin-Rublevsky,
Herceg Novi 2000 was the previous 'battle'
between these two players in this line. In­
stead of 16 i.e3, White can continue with
the plan in the main game with 1 6 i.g3.
1 6 i.. g 3 i..eS 1 7 ..ta2 'ii'a 7 1 8 'iti>h 1 'ii'b 6
The earlier game Lastin-Landa, Tomsk
2001 continued 1 8... 'ifcS!?, trying to induce
White into playing b2-b3 and thus killing
the a2-bishop. Instead White initiated tre­
mendous complications with 19 f4!? lt:lxc4!?
20 b3 lt:le3 (20 ... lt:lb6 21 liJdS 'ifxcl 22
lt:lxe7+ <io>f8 23 lt:lxc8 'ifxc8 24 l:.xd6 looks
better for White) 21 l:td3 dS 22 b4 'ifxb4 23
'ifxe3 dxe4 24 l:tdd1 'ifa3 with a posicion
which is very difficult to assess. White has
an extra knight but some coordination
problems. Black has three extra pawns but
no dangerous pawn majority. One thing that
can be said is that Lastin was prepared to
face 1 8 ... 'ii'c S again, albeit in a blitz game!
1 9 f4! t:Dc6 20 f5!?
This is a very dangerous plan. White in­
tends to give the bishop on a2 his life back!
20 . . . t:Db4 21 fxe6 fxe6
Given what happens in the game, Black
should seriously consider 21 ... lt:lxa2!? here.
After 22 exfl + i.xfl 23 lt:lxa2 'ii'b3 Black
regains his pawn and is only a little worse.
22 c5!
This pawn sacrifice releases the a2-
bishop and now both White's bishops angle
beautifully across the board.
65
Sicilian K a n
2 2 . . . dxc5 2 3 a5 'ii'c 6 2 4 ..tc4 �dB 25
�f1 �f7?
2S ... i.d7 (Fedorowicz) is a stronger de­
fence but I would still very much prefer to
be White: 26 1i'g4 l:t£8 27 i.eS g6 28 h4!,
planning h4-hS, looks good.
26 'ii'g 4 l:UB 27 �e5 g6 28 'ii'f4 g5 29
'ii'g4 h5 30 'ii'h 3 �adS
31 �xf7! �xf7 32 �xe6 ltJd3 33 �xf7 +
�xf7 34 .l:l.f 1 + �eB 35 'ii'x h5 + �d7 36
'ii'h 3 + 'ii'e 6 37 'ii'x d3 + �cB 38 'ii'g 3
'ii'c4 39 'ii'g 4 + .U.d7 40 �d 1 ..td6 4 1
�xd6 1 -0
Game 22
Khalifman-Rublevsky
Kazan 200 1
._______________.
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6
5 �d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 ltJc3
66
ltJc6 9 ltJxc6 �xc6 1 0 b4!?
There are three points to this ambitious
move. Firstly, Black now has to be on a
constant lookout for b4-bS from White,
especially as the knight on f6 often ends up
on d7. Secondly, Black is denied access to
the aS-square which, as we have seen in
previous games, is a handy place for the
queen. Thirdly, White prepares to fianchetto
with i.b2. So far so good for White, but
there is a downside. By moving the b-pawn
two squares instead of one, the c4-pawn is
denied protection from its partner and can
prove to be a liability on the half-open c­
f!.le. Whether Black can become active
enough to exploit this is another question.
1 0 . . . b6
The safest reply; Black gives his bishop a
secure retreat to b 7. However, Black can
also simply develop with 10 ... i.e7 and now:
a) 1 1 bS!? (critical, but White has yet to
come up with an advantage after this move)
1 1 ...i.d7 1 2 a4 (12 i.e3 axbS 13 cxbS "iVaS
14 i.d2 1i'a3 1 S l:tb 1 0-0 1 6 l:tb3 "iVa7 1 7 b6
1i'b8 18 i.bS l:tc8 19 a4 i.d8 20 i.f4 i.xb6
21 i.xd6 i.c7 22 i.xd7 l:td8! 23 tiJbS was
agreed drawn in Savanovic-Ionescu, Bijel-
jina Dvorovi 2002; 23 ... i.xd6 24 1i'xd6
l:txd7 is very drawish) 1 2...0-0 1 3 i.e3 1i'c7
14 aS axbS 1 S i.b6 "iVc8 1 6 tDxbS i.c6 1 7
tt:Ja7 1i'd7 1 8 tDxc6 1i'xc6 1 9 1i'a4 1i'c8 20
"iVbS tiJd7 21 l:tfb1 i.f6 22 l:ta3 tt:Jxb6 23
1i'xb6 i.d8 24 1i'xb7 was another draw in

Lobzhanidze-Lastin, Kstovo 1 997.
b) I can't find any examples of 1 1 i.b2,
but after 1 1 ...0-0 12 1i'e2 it's not clear
whether Black can achieve anything by de­
laying ... b7-b6 any further.
1 1 i.b2 i.e7
This is not forced. Black could try to take
the sting out of a possible kingside attack
from White by fianchettoing, although of
course there are then potential problems
with the defence of d6. Nevertheless,
1 1 ...g6!? 12 1i'e2 i.g7 13 l:.ad1 1i'e7
(13...0-0 14 eS! dxeS 1 5 i.xg6 is promising
for White, as is 13 ...1i'c7? 1 4 lLJdS!) 1 4 bS
axbS 1 5 cxbS i.b7 16 1i'e3 1i'd8 17 i.e2 0-0
18 i.f3 .U.e8 19 eS lLJdS 20 lLJxdS exdS 21
i.xdS i.xdS 22 .U.xdS i.xeS saw Black
equalising in Cheparinov-S.Kovacevic, Dos
Hermanas 2002.
1 2 'i!fe2 0-0 1 3 l:lad 1
It should be pointed out that this line is
very similar to the one studied in Vogt­
Gheorghiu (Game 25), but with two differ­
ences: White has not committed himself to
playing �hl , and White's b-pawn is on b4
rather than b3. The first difference is obvi­
ously favourable for White as he may well
be able to do without 'it>h1 , using the extra
tempo in his kingside attacking ambitions.
The second difference, though, favours
Black; the c4-pawn can become quite vul­
nerable down the half-open c-ftle, especially
if White plays the 'normal' retreat i.b 1 .
5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6
1 3 . . . Ci:Jd7
In later games Black instead played
1 3 ...'iic 7 14 f4 and now:
a) 14 ... l:.ad8?! (I believe the rook should
instead be on c8, hitting c4) 1 5 �hl i.b7
16 l:tf3! g6 17 l:th3 lLJd7? 18 lLJbS!! and
Black resigned in Kindermann-Thesing,
Bundesliga 2001 because of 1 8 ... axb5 1 9
'iVhS!. This i s a great illustration of the dan­
gers that await Black in this line.
b) 14 ...l:tac8 1 5 .U.f3 .U.fd8 16 l:th3 h6 1 7
.U.g3 i.b7 1 8 a3 a S 1 9 eS dxeS 20 fxe5 lLJe8
21 lLJbS 1i'b8 (Luther-Rublevsky, World
Team Ch., Yerevan 2001) and here Rublev­
sky gives 22 i.cl axb4 23 axb4 i.xb4 24
i.xh6 with a clear advantage for White.
Rublevsky mentions no improvements for
Black in this line so we should assume that
White is better after 13 ...'iic 7.
14 f4 i.b7
Preparing to pressurise the c-pawn. The
line 1 4... l:.c8 1 5 .U.f3 i.b7 1 6 l:th3 would
transpose to the note to Black's 1 6 th move,
while 14 ... i.f6? gives Black problems with
d6: 1 5 i.c2 1i'c7 1 6 'iVd3 (Stohl) and Black
is faced with threats of 'iix d6 and e4-e5.
1 5 l:lf3
Here comes a typical rook swinger!
White is going straight for the throat on the
kingside.
15 . . . g6
A prophylactic measure against l:th3 fol­
lowed by c4-e5. At some point Black will
67
Sicilian Kan
also want to bolster his kingside with ... i.f6-
g7 or ... l:.eB and ... i.f8.
16 :h3
1 6 . . . i.f6?
This move allows a tactical breakthrough,
after which White converts his initiative into
a concrete advantage.
The only consistent way to play is with
1 6 ... l:.cB! and now, as Slovakian GM Igor
Stohl has shown, no combinations work for
White:
a) 17 liJdS? (this works against 17 .. .'ific7
but not when the queen is on dB) 17 ... exd5
1 B 'WhS gxhS 19 l:.g3+ i.gS!.
b) 1 7 eS?! dxeS 1 B i.e4 'Wc7 and White
has no good way to continue.
c) Rublevsky gives 1 7 i.b1 with a 'clear
advantage to White' but it's not totally ob­
vious how White strengthens his position,
while Black can improve his defences with
... l:teB and possibly ...i.f8.
1 7 e5!
Both players should always be looking
out for this move.
1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 i.e4 'ikc7
Or 1B ... i.xe4 19 lLlxe4 i.g7 20 l:.hd3
l:.a7 21 i.xeS 'WeB 22 i.xg7 �xg7 23 l:.d6
and White's pressure is becoming unbear­
able.
1 9 i.xb7 'ikxb7 20 ll'le4 �g7 21 fxe5
'ikc7
Or:
a) 21 ...lLlxe5? 22 liJd6!.
68
b) 21 ...i.xe5? 22 i.xe5 l2Jxe5 23 lLlf6+.
22 ll'lf6 + i.xf6 2 3 exf6
Now White has mating threats with 'ii'c 3-
h6. Black does extremely well to last as long
as he does.
23 . . . e5 24 l:r.f3 l::.fd8 25 .l:f.d5!
But not 25 'ii'e 3? on account of
25 ...'ii'xc4 26 'ii'h6 lLlxf6!.
25 . . . h5 26 l:.fd3 ll'lf8
26 ... lLlxf6? 27 'ifxe5! 'ifxeS 2B l:.xdB+
'ii'e B 29 i.xf6 and 26 ... 'ii'xc4? 27 'ii'd2 both
win for White.
27 'ikxe5 'ikxe5 28 i.xe5 :xd5 29 .l:f.xd5
Okay, Black has survived into an end­
game, but the extra pawn is always going to
be a winner.
29 . . . ll'le6 30 c5 bxc5 3 1 bxc5 l:.c8 32
�d6 g5 33 'it>f2 'ith7 34 �e7 'it>g6 35
'it>e3 l::. b8 36 l:!.d2 'itf5 37 'it>d3 l:!.b4 38
'it>c3 :b1 39 'it>c4 .l:f.c1 + 40 'itd5 h4 41
c6 g4 42 'it>d6 g3 43 hxg3 hxg3 44 'it>d7
l::.c 3 45 �d6 'it>xf6 46 c7 1 -0
Game 23
Shirov-Rublevsky
Montecatini Terme 2000
1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll'lxd4 a6
5 i.d3 ll'lf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 ll'lc3
ll'lc6 9 �e3
The only real alternative to 9 lLlxc6.
White defends the knight on d4 and devel­
ops another piece.

9 . . . i.e7
An important alternative here is 9 ... l2Je5!?
10 i..e 2 and now:
a) 10 ... i..e7 is sensible: 1 1 f4 lDg6 1 2
'it>h1 0-0 1 3 "ifd2 e5! 1 4 fxe5 (or 1 4 lDf5
exf4! 1 5 i..x f4 i..xf5 1 6 exf5 l2Jxf4 1 7 1:hf4
d5! 1 8 cxd5 i..d 6 1 9 .I:tffl .te5! followed by
..."ifd6, ...nfe8 and ... nac8 [Fogarasi] when
Black has good dark-squared compensation
for the pawn) 1 4...dxe5 1 5 ltJfS i..b4! and
Black's counterplay against e4 compensates
for White's powerful knight on f5, Acs­
Fogarasi, Budapest 1 998.
b) 1 0.. J:tc8!? and now:
b1) 1 1 f4!? lDxc4 1 2 i..xc4 nxc4 1 3 e5 is
an interesting pawn sacrifice. In the game
Renet-Adamski, Katowice 1 992, White got
a strong attack after 1 3 ...l2Jg8 1 4 "ii'e 2 d5 1 5
fS.
b2) 1 1 b3 with a further split:
b21) 1 1 ...b5 1 2 f4 l2Jg6 1 3 lDc2 i..e7 14
a4 with an edge to White, Shorr-Hjartarson,
Amsterdam 1 99 1 .
b22) 1 1 ..."ii'a5 1 2 nct ( 1 2 i..d2 "ifc5 1 3
i..e3 "ii'a 5 1 4 i..d2 "ii'c 5 1 5 lD£3 i.. e7 1 6 nc1
0-0 17 i..e3 "ii'a5 was equal in Koch­
Cramling, Haifa 1 989) 1 2... -te7 13 f4 lDc6
14 i.. f3 0-0 1 5 "ii'd2 lDxd4 1 6 i..xd4 i..c 6 1 7
nfd1 'it>h8 1 8 "ii' £2 b 5 1 9 e 5 dxe5 20 fxe5
l2Jd7 21 cxb5 axb5 and Black had equalised
in Tondivar-Adamski, Giessen 1 994, even
though it seems a little strange to carry out
the manoeuvre ...lDc6-e5-c6!
5 i. d3 0. t 6 6 0 - 0 d6
1 0 f4
10 nct is less threatening: 10 ...0-0 1 1
"ii'e 2 lDe5 1 2 i..b 1 "ifc7 1 3 b3 lDeg4 1 4 i..g5
"ii'c 5 1 5 l2Jf3 h6 and Black was fine in the
game Balashov-Liberzon, Palma de Mal­
lorca 1 989.
1 0 . . . 0-0
Black can also go for an immediate
counter-attack with 10 ...l2Jxd4 1 1 i..xd4 e5!?
12 fxe5 dxe5 13 i..xe5 and now:
a) 13 ...l2Jg4 (Hawelko-Adamski, Polish
Ch. 1 987) and now 14 i..d 4! looks good:
14 ..."ii'c 7? 1 5 e5! i..c 5 16 i.. f5!.
b) 13. ..i..c 5+ 1 4 'it>h 1 l2Jg4 15 i..g3 lDe3
1 6 "ii'h 5 lDxfl 1 7 nxfl i..e 6 1 8 l2Jd5 i..d6
19 i..h 4!? (Hawelko) and now after
1 9 ..."ii'b 8 I like the move 20 e5!. White cer­
tainly has a strong attack.
1 1 �h 1 0.xd4 1 2 i.xd4 i.c6 1 3 'ife2
0.d7
Black has reached his typical defensive
set-up. Compared to previous games in this
chapter, White has gained a bit of time be­
cause the exchange of knights occurred on
d4 instead of c6. On the other hand, the
bishop on d4 is not ideally placed; it can be
hit by a timely ... e6-e5.
1 4 l:!.ad 1 e5!
Black gives up the d5-square but secures
e5. This is a reasonable trade, especially
since the bishop on c6 is ready to chop on
d5 as soon as the white knight arrives.
1 5 .ie3 exf4 1 6 .ixf4 0.e5
69
Sicilia n Kan
1 6 ...'ifa5 1 7 lDd5 .i.xd5 1 8 exd5 l:Iae8 19
'ifc2 h6 20 ..tf5 lDf6 21 a3?! lDh5 22 b4
'ifd8! 23 .tel i.g5 24 .i.b2 .i.f6 equalised
for Black in Hernandez-Christiansen, Phila­
delphia 1 998, but I like White after the
more ambitious 21 c5!.
1 7 .tc2
Lining up an enticing sacrificial idea.
Also worth attention is Ribli's suggestion
of 17 l2Jd5!? .i.xd5 1 8 .i.xe5! (18 exd5 .i.f6
is very solid for Black) and now:
a) 1 8 ... .i.e6 19 .i.c3 is favourable for
White, who can attack with e4-e5.
b) 18 ... dxe5 19 exd5 looks pleasant for
White, although after 1 9 ...'ifd6 (19... ..td6 20
'ir'c2 g6 21 c5 l:tc8 22 b4 is tremendous for
White) 20 l:tdel f6 21 ..tf5 g6 22 i.e6+
�g7 it's also difficult for White to improve
his position.
1 7 . . . 'ifc7 1 8 c5!?
Sacrificing a pawn in order to undermine
the support for the e5-knight and open lines
for the light-squared bishop.
1 8 .i.xe5 dxe5 19 t2Jd5 .i.xd5 20 exd5 g6
gives White an inferior version of note 'b'
to White's 1 7th move.
1 8 . . . dxc5 1 9 lLld5 'iid 6
19 ... .i.xd5? loses after 20 exd5 .i.d6 (or
20... f6 21 'ir'e4 g6 22 d6 .i.xd6 23 'ir'd5+) 21
i.xe5 .i.xe5 22 d6! .i.xd6 23 'ir'd3.
20 .ig3
20 t2Jb6 leads to a drawing ending after
20... ..tb5 21 'ir'xb5 axb5 22 l:hd6 ..txd6 23
70
lDxa8 lha8 24 l:Id 1 t2Jd3! 25 .i.xd3 .i.xf4
26 .i.xb5 - Shirov.
20 . . . .tb5 2 1 'ifh5 f6 22 l:tf4
22 lDxf6+?! l:txf6 23 .i.xe5 llxfl + 24
l:txfl 'ir'e6 25 i.b3 .i.c4 is a bit better for
Black; White's attack has run out of steam
and he is left with more pawn islands.
22 . . . g6 23 'ifh6
23 . . . l:tad8!
Imaginative play by Rublevsky, who cal­
culates that he will obtain enough compen­
sation for the queen.
24 lLlxf6 + l:txf6 25 l:txd6 l:tfxd6 26 l:tf1 !
i.f8?
Undoing the previous good work. Shirov
suggests 26 ...g5! and now:
a) 27 'ir'h5? .i.xfl 28 .i.xe5 l:tg6 29 i.c3
b5 30 e5 .i.d3 31 i.xd3 llxd3 and the ex­
change of bishops leaves the position in
Black's favour.
b) 27 'ir'h3 .i.xfl 28 .i.xe5, which Shirov
assesses as unclear.
27 'ifc1 .ixf1 28 .ixe5 l:te6?
28 ... ..tc4 limits the damage.
29 'ifxf1 J:txe5 30 .ib3 + c4 3 1 'ifxc4 +
'it>g7 32 'iic 7 + 1 -0
Game 24
Timman-Kengis
Yerevan O(ympiad 1996
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 .id3 lLlf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 g6

After this move we reach positions simi­
lar to those in Games 1 -8 with two subtle
differences: White's queen is on d1 instead
of e2, and Black's queen is also at home
(instead of c7). I believe that this difference
works in White's favour. White's most ob­
vious plan of action is pressure down the
half-open d-ftle against Black's vulnerable
d6-pawn so the white queen is clearly well
placed on either d1 or d2, allowing a dou­
bling on the ftle with _:.dl . Casting our
minds back to Chapter 1 , White would of­
ten eventually play the move 'ife2-d2 any­
way, thus effectively losing a move. In the
line here, White generally manages to put
earlier pressure on d6 and it's more difficult
for Black to reach an ideal defensive set-up.
8 rt:Jc3 Ji.. g 7
9 JigS
Not the only move by any means. White
has two dangerous alternatives:
a) 9 tt:J£3 aims for a similar set-up to the
one considered in Games 1 -5:
a1) 9 ...tt:Jc6 1 0 h3! (10 �f4 tLlg4 1 1 'ifd2
0-0 1 2 �e2 tt:Jge5 1 3 l:tfd1 tLlx£3+ 1 4 �x£3
tLld4 1 5 �e2 'ifc7 1 6 l:r.acl �d7 1 7 �fl
i.c6 and Black had managed to equalise in
Tsuboi-Hernandez, Havana 1 998) 10 ...tt:Jd7
(or 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 � f4) 1 1 �g5 'ifc7 1 2 :c1
0-0 13 'ifd2 tLlce5 1 4 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 1 5 :fd1
(1 5 b3!?) 1 5...b6 ( 1 5 ...tt:Jxc4 1 6 �xc4 'ifxc4
1 7 'ifxd6 is awkward for Black) 1 6 �fl (16
b3 avoids any complications; I like White
5 Ji.. d3 rt:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6
after 1 6...�b7 1 7 �fl) 1 6 ... f6 (16...tt:Jxc4!?)
1 7 �e3 tLlf7 1 8 tLla4 :b8 1 9 'ifb4 and
Black was in some trouble in Nyysti­
Cabrilo, Belgrade 2002.
a2) 9 ... 0-0 10 i. f4 and now:
a21) 10 ...tLlc6 1 1 h3!, followed by 'ii'd 2.
a22) 10 ... tt:Jg4 1 1 i.e2 tLle5 12 tLlxe5!
dxe5 13 'ifxd8 :xd8 14 �g5 f6 (14 ...:e8?!
15 tLla4 tLlc6 16 tLlb6 l:r.b8 17 c5 left Black
struggling to complete development in Yu­
dasin-Movsesian, Pula 1 997) 15 :fd 1 �d7
16 �e3 l:tc8 17 :acl is a bit better for
White; Black will find it hard to utilise the
d4-outpost.
a23) 10 ... tLlh5 1 1 �g5 'ifc7 12 'ifd2 tLld7
1 3 :acl with a typical edge for White,
Aseev-Kochyev, St. Petersburg 1 995. Hav­
ing played 'ifd1 -d2 in one go, White is ef­
fectively a tempo up on similar lines consid­
ered in Chapter 1 .
b) 9 tLlb3!? is recommended i n the popu­
lar Beating the Sicilian series by John Nunn
and Joe Gallagher. 9 ... 0-0 10 i.e2 and:
b1) 10 ...'ife7 1 1 � f4 l:.d8 12 'ifd2 tLlc6
13 l:.fd1 tLle8 14 i.e3 l:tb8 (or 14 ...tLlf6 1 5
�b6 l:td7 1 6 'ife3 and Black is in a tangle,
Gallagher-Gokhale, Sangli 2000) 1 5 i.b6
tLlc7 1 6 .l:tacl and White has a pleasant ad­
vantage, Lutz-Cvitan, Passau 1 997.
b2) 1 O ...tLlc6 1 1 �f4 tLle8 (1 1 ...tLle5 12
c5 tLle8 transposes to note 'b23') 12 c5! (12
'ifd2 b6 13 .l:tfd1 tLle5 14 :acl 'ifc7 was
equal in Nunn-Gheorghiu, Vienna 1 986)
71
Sicilian Ka n
and now:
b21) 1 2 ... e5 13 i..e 3 i.. e6 1 4 ll'ld5 i..xd5
15 exd5 ll'le7 (FeBland-Micklethwaite, cor­
respondence 1 994) and here I like the sim­
ple 16 .l:tc t , which looks pleasant for White.
b22) 12 ... dxc5 13 'iix dB ll'lxdB 14 ll'la4!
e5 (Nevanlinna-Seeman, Jyvaskyla 2001)
and now I like the look of 15 i..e 3! ll'le6 (or
15 ... c4 1 6 ll'lb6 l:tbB 17 ll'lc5) 1 6 ll'lb6 .l:tbB
1 7 ll'lxc5.
b23) 12 ... ll'le5 13 i..e 3 f5 14 f4 ll'lf7 and
here I think White should play 1 5 exf5! (15
i.. O fxe4 1 6 i..xe4 d5 was a quick draw in
Gallagher-Cvitan, Cannes 1 996; signifi­
cantly, though, Cvitan moved onto 10 ...'ii'e7
for his next encounter) 1 5 ... exf5 16 i.. O and
Black has problems moving his pieces from
the back rank.
9 . . . lt'lbd7 1 0 J:.c1
1 0 iVd2 0-0 11 .l:tad1 1Wc7 1 2 b3 b6 13
i..b 1 .U.e8 14 ll'lde2 i.. f8 15 'it>h1 i..b7 1 6 f4
was perhaps a little better for White in
Tompa-Bellon Lopez, Metz 1 985, but I
prefer Tirnman's handling of the position.
1 0 . . . 'ii'c 7 1 1 b3 0-0 1 2 'ii'd 2
1 2 . . . b6?!
I would be tempted to play 12 .. J�e8 here,
planning to meet 13 .ih6 with 13 ... i..h 8!. It
seems that with the exchange of the dark­
squared bishops, Black loses much of the
potential counterplay in his position.
1 3 ..th6! ..tb7 1 4 ..txg7 �xg7 1 5 i.b1
J:.ad8 16 �h 1
72
White's position is much the easier to
play. He could try to attack the weak dark
squares on the kingside, but much the safer
bet is to concentrate on the queenside, spe­
cifically the weaknesses on d6 and b6.
1 6 . . . 'ii'c 5 1 7 f3 J:.fe8 1 8 .l:tfd1 lt'le5 1 9
lt'la4 'ii'a 5?!
Obviously, this is not really what Black
wants to do. 1 9 ... 1Wc7 20 iVb4 looks trou­
blesome for Black, but after 20... .l:tb8! I
can't find anything too devastating for
White.
20 'ii'x a5 bxa5 21 c5 dxc5 22 lt:\xc5
i.c8 23 �g 1 !
Bringing the king into the game.
23 . . . g5 24 �f2 �g8 25 �e3
White is in control. Only by a mixture of
heroic defence by Black and inaccurate play
by White does the game end in a draw.
25 . . . .l:td6 26 lt:\e2 llxd 1 27 l.txd 1 lt'lfd7
28 llc 1 lLlb6 29 ..td3 l:!.d8 30 l.tc3 f5 3 1
g3 fxe4 3 2 .be4 �f7 3 3 lt'ld4 �f6 34
a4 h5 35 l.tc2 h4 36 gxh4 gxh4 37 J:.g2
lLld5 + 38 ..txd5 exd5 39 f4 lt:\g4 + 40
�f3 lt'lh6 41 lt:\c6 l:!.e8 42 lt:\e5 ..tt5 43
J:.d2 .l:td8 44 �e3 h3 45 �f3 ..te4 + 46
�f2 �f5 4 7 lt'lxe4 �xf4 48 lt'lc6 Y2 - Y2
Game 25
Vogt-Gheorghiu
Hambur;g 1984
1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6

5 .td3 l1Jt6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �e7
Again we eventually arrive at this classical
development from Black. Variations here
should be compared closely to those in
Games 9- 1 1 , and of course there are many
transpositional possibilities.
Other possibilities for Black include:
a) 7...lbbd7 8 lbc3 b6 is possible, but
then White can exploit the fact that Black
has committed his knight to d7 so early: 9
a4! ..tb7 10 aS and White breaks up Black's
structure: 1 0... ..te7 (lO... bxaS 1 1 lbb3!) 1 1
..te3! (1 1 axb6?! allows 1 1 ...'ifxb6 1 2 lbb3
.l:tb8!, planning to meet lbaS with ... ..taB,
Dolmatov-Loginov, USSR 1 983) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2
axb6 lbxb6 1 3 lbb3 and White is better.
b) An important alternative is for Black
to choose first to fianchetto on the queen­
side. Although this sometimes simply trans­
poses, there are some independent points to
remember: 7 ... b6 8 lbc3 ..tb7
and now:
a) 9 a4!? lbc6! (9 ... lbbd7?! 10 aS! trans­
poses to note 'a' above, but 9 ... ..te7, keep­
ing the option of ...lbc6, also looks okay) 1 0
lbxc6 ..txc6 1 1 ..te3 ..te7 1 2 f3 0-0 1 3 'ifd2
'ii'b 8 14 .l:tfd1 l:c8 1 S ..tfl lbd7 and Black
was okay in Ivanchuk-Rublevsky, Monte­
catini Terme 2000.
b) 9 ..te3 (trying to reach the set-up stud­
ied in Game 26) 9 ... ..te7 10 f4 lbc6!?
(10 ... 0-0?! transposes into note 'a' to Black's
9th move in Game 26; 10 ...lbbd7 is possible
5 � d 3 l1J f6 6 0 - 0 d6
though: 11 fS eS 1 2 lbc2 lbcS isn't so bad
for Black on this occasion as the bishop is
not particularly well placed on e3) 1 1 lbxc6
(the more restrained 1 1 'iff3 looks stronger)
1 1 .....txc6 1 2 eS!? dxeS 1 3 fxeS lbd7 14
'ii'g4 (14 .l:txf?? loses to 1 4...'it>xf7 1S 'ifhS+
'it>g8 16 .l:tf1 'ife8!) 14 ... g6 1 S 'ii'g3 (or 1 S
.l:txf7 �xf7 1 6 .l:tfl + 'it>g7 1 7 'ifxe6 .l:tf8! ­
Gheorghiu) 1 S ...'ifc7 1 6 i.d4 lbcS 1 7 ..tc2
.l:td8 1 8 l:tad 1 0-0 1 9 'ife3 .l:txd4! 20 'ifxd4
lbd7! 21 'iff4 lbxeS and Black has excellent
compensation for the exchange, Kinder­
mann-Gheorghiu, Zurich 1 984.
c) 9 f4 and now:
cl) 9 ...lbc6 10 lbxc6 i.xc6 1 1 'ife2 ..te7
1 2 b3 0-0 13 i.b2 leads to note 'b' to
White's 1 1 th move. A plus for White is that
he has not committed his king to h 1 .
c2) 9 ...l2Jbd7 allows White to force the
issue with 10 fS! . As we have seen before,
the type of position reached after 10 ... eS 1 1
lbc2 is generally better for White.
c3) 9 ... ..te7 1 0 fS!' (10 'it>h 1 0-0 1 1 'ife2,
reaching the main game, is of course possi­
ble) 10 ... lbc6 1 1 ..te3 lbxd4 12 ..txd4 0-0
13 fxe6 fxe6 14 'ife2 �h8 1 5 l:tad1 l2Jd7 1 6
.l:txf8+ 'ifxf8 1 7 lba4 ..tf6 1 8 ..txf6 'ifxf6 19
'ife3 .l:td8! and White was just a tiny bit bet­
ter in Adams-Ivanchuk, Linares 2002.
c4) 9 ... g6!? is obviously risky but totally
thematic; Black answers the £2-f4 lunge with
a fianchetto. This is a favourite of the Ro­
manian GM Constantin Ionescu.
73
Sicilia n Kan
White can play:
c41) 10 f5 gxfS! 1 1 exfS .l:tg8 12 tLl£3 eS
13 .igS tLlbd7 14 .ie4 bS! 1 5 .ixb7 'ii'b 6+
16 'it>h1 'ifxb7 17 b3 .ie7 18 'ii'e 2 l::tc 8 and
Black had reasonable counterplay in Magem
Badals-Ionescu, Manresa 1 996.
c42) 1 0 'it>h1 and now:
c421) 10 ... .ig7 1 1 fS 'ii'e 7 12 fxe6 fxe6
13 'ii'a 4+! (Zeller) is problematic for Black:
both 1 3. .. tLlbd7 14 tLlc6 and 13. ..tiJfd7 1 4
.ie3 leave Black struggling t o complete his
development.
c422) 10 ...tLlbd7! 1 1 fS 'ii'e7 (an advan­
tage of not playing an early .. .'ifc7) 1 2 fxe6
fxe6 13 'ii'B .ig7 14 'ifh3 tLlcS 15 i.gS 0-0
(Zeller) and Black has an ideal set-up. Zeller
goes on to give 1 6 .ic2 'ifd7 with the idea
of 1 7 .l:tae 1 ? lLlfxe4!.
If this analysis holds up then 9 ... g6 looks
like an excellent answer to 9 f4.
8 lt:\c3 0-0
9 'i!fe2
At some point White will have to decide
what to do with the dark-squared bishop
(b3 and .ib2, or .id2). As John Nunn
points out in Beating the Sicilian, White would
quite like to know how Black develops his
b8-knight before committing himself. Plans
involving .id2, 'ife2 and .l:tae1 are most
effective when Black has played ... tLlbd7.
The point is that if White manages to
achieve the advance e4-e5, then the f6-
knight does not have the d7-square avail-
74
able. Conversely, a queenside fianchetto for
White works well when Black plays ...tLlc6.
So with moves like 'ife2, f4 and 'it>h1 White
is playing logically while waiting to see how
Black reacts.
That said, there are also advantages with
ploughing right ahead with a queenside fi­
anchetto, for example 9 b3 b6 10 i.b2 i.b7
1 1 'ife2 and now:
a) Given what I have said before,
1 1 ...tLlbd7 looks most logical. After 1 2 f4
'ii'c 7 we transpose to note 'a' to White's
1 1 th move.
b) 1 1 ...tLlc6 12 tLlxc6 .ixc6 13 .U.ae t !? (13
f4 transposes to note 'b' to White's 1 1 th
move) 1 3 ...ttJd7?! (I believe Black should
play 13. .. .l:te8! 14 f4 tLld7!)
14 tiJdS! .ih4 1 5 g3 .if6 16 tLlxf6+
lLlxf6 17 .l:td1 and the absence of Black's
dark-squared bishop promises White a
pleasant edge, Jansa-Polugacvsky, Sochi
1 976
For 9 i.e3 and other alternatives, sec
Game 26.
9 . . . b6
9 ... tLlc6!? is not really a typical Kan idea
but it is playable nevertheless. 10 tLlxc6
bxc6 1 1 f4 (1 1 b3 and .ib2 is also sensible)
1 1 ...e5 1 2 'it>h1 tLld7 (Bonsch recommends
12 ... exf4!? 13 .ixf4 tLld7) 13 f5! aS 14 .ic3
was a bit better for White, Adams­
Christiansen, Reykjavik 1 990.
1 0 f4 ..tb7 1 1 �h 1

Again White may try to do without 'it>h 1 .
After 1 1 b 3 we have:
a) 1 t ...lLlbd7 (the most logical, given the
reasoning above) 1 2 i..b 2 'Wc7 (12 .. J:te8!?)
13 l::ta d1 l::t fe8 14 i..b 1 transposes to Game
10.
b) 1 t ...lLlc6 1 2 lLlxc6 i..x c6 1 3 i..b 2 lLld7
14 l::ta d1 and now probably best for Black is
14 ...g6!, asking the question whether White
has anything better than to transpose into
the main game with 1 5 'it>h 1 . At some point
White has to do something about tricks on
the a7-g1 diagonal but note that the imme­
diate 1 4... b5? doesn't work for Black: 1 5
cxb5 axb5 1 6 i.xb5 'Wb6+ 1 7 l::t f2! i..x b5
18 'ir'xb5 'iVxb5 1 9 lLlxb5 l::txa2 20 i..xg7
.l:!.fa8 21 l::txa2 l::txa2 22 i..d4 1eft White with
a clear extra pawn in Hellers-Adamski,
Eeklo 1 985.
Black should answer 1 1 i..d 2 with
1 t ...lLlc6! 1 2 lLlxc6 i..xc6 and now White's
bishop is misplaced on d2.
1 1 . . . Ci:Jc6
1 t ...lLlbd7! 1 2 i.d2 'Wc7 13 l::ta e1 trans­
poses to Game 9. Given the problems Black
experiences in the text, I believe this is
Black's best way to continue.
1 2 Ci:Jxc6 .i.xc6 1 3 b3 Ci:Jd7
In earlier games Gheorghiu played
13. .. 'Wc7 here: 14 i..b 2 l:t.ad8 1 5 l::ta e1 i..b7
16 i..b 1 lLld7? (16 ...g6! 1 7 'ir'd3 is only a
slight plus for White according to Nunn) 1 7
'ir'h5 l::t fe8 1 8 l::te 3 lLlf6 1 9 'ir'h3 g6 20 f5
gave White a winning attack in Nunn­
Gheorghiu, Biel 1 983: 20 ... i..c 8 21 l::tg3 'it>g7
22 'iVh4 l::t f8 23 i..c t l::td e8 24 e5 dxe5 25
'ir'h6+ 'it>h8 26 l::th3 l::tg8 27 i..g5 l::tg7 28
i..xf6 i..x f6 29 lLle4 'Wd8 30 fxg6 i..e 7 31
'ir'xh7+ l::txh7 32 l::tx h7+ 'it>g8 33 gxf7+
'it>xh7 34 fxe8'iV 1 -0.
1 4 .i.b2 g6 1 5 �ad 1 �eB 1 6 .i.b1
The direct 1 6 e5!? is also enticing:
1 6 ... dxe5 1 7 fxe5 'iic 7 1 8 i..e4 lLlxe5 (or
1 8 ... i.xe4 1 9 lLlxe4 lLlxe5? 20 'iif2 f5 21
'iVf4) 1 9 i..xc6 lLlxc6 20 l::tx f7! 'it>xf7 21
l::t fl + i.. f6 22 lLle4 e5 23 lLlxf6 'it>g7 24
5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6
lLlxe8+ l::txe8 2 5 'ii £3 and White was better
in Hellers-Servat, Gausdal 1 986.
1 6 . . .i.f8?
Black has two better defences: .
a) 1 6 ... 'iVc7 1 7 'iVd3 i.. f8 1 8 lLlb5!? i..x b5
19 cxb5 axb5 20 'ir'xb5 'iVb7 (Nunn­
Gheorghiu, Hamburg 1 984) and now Nunn
recommends 21 a4, relieving the b 1 -bishop
of its defensive duty on a2 and pinning
down the b6-pawn. This is enough to keep
an edge.
Against 1 6 ...'iib 8 Nunn likes 17 'iid3 b5
18 cxb5 axb5 19 lLle2 b4 20 lLld4 i..b7 21
'ir'h3 'with a dangerous kingside attack'.
1 7 e5!
Now this is even stronger than in the
previous note. White obtains a storming
attack on the kingside.
1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 .i.e4 'ikc7
1 8 ...i..x e4 1 9 lLlxe4 i..g7 20 i..xe5 i..x e5
21 fxe5 'it>g7 22 'iVf2 leaves Black with no
good defence: 22...'iie 7 23 'ii f6+ ! 'it>g8 24
'ir'xe7 l::txe7 25 l::txd7 or 22 ... l::te 7 23 lLlg5
'ir'g8 24 lLlxf7 l::t f8 25 l::tx d7.
1 9 'ikf3 .i.xe4 20 Ci:Jxe4 f5
Or 20...i.g7 which is met by 21 fxe5
lLlxe5 22 lLlf6+ 'it>h8 23 'iVg3! and the
knight is lost.
21 �xd7! fxe4 22 'ikd 1 'ikc6 23 .i.xe5
�acB 24 'ikd4 i.e7
24...i..c 5 runs into the attractive conclu­
sion 25 l::tg 7+ 'it>f8 26 i..d 6+! i..x d6 27 'iVf6
mate.
75
 Sicilia n Kan

12 ..ie3 tLlg4 1 3 'ir'xg4 ..ixd4 14 'ir'e2 with

an edge to White.
c) 9 ...tLlbd7 and now:
c1) 10 �e3 transposes into the main text.
c2) 10 'ife2 'ifc7 transposes into note 'c'
to White's l Oth move in Game 9, while
Black can also consider 10 ... g6!?.
c3) 10 'it>h 1 with a further split:
c31) 10 ... 'ii'c 7?! 1 1 g4! is similar to the
main game, but I think that Black has
played ... 'ifc7 too early. He is not well pre­
pared to meet a kingside storm.
c32) I believe that 10 ....:.e8! is best; a
25 f5! good, non-committal move, preparing
Excellent attacking play. The immediate ... ..i£8. Black should generally wait for
25 i.h8 ..i£8 26 .:.g7+?? 'it>xh8 27 :xg6+ White to 'waste' a move with 'ii'e2 before
fails to 27 ... e5! so White attempts to deflect reacting with ...'ii'c 7. Play can continue 1 1
the e6-pawn. 'ii'e2 'ii'c 7 and now:
25 . . .llcd8 c321) 1 2 lLlf3 lLlcS 1 3 ..ic2 eS 1 4 fS bS!
Now 25 ...exf5 26 ..ih8 wins after 15 ..igS b4 16 tLld 1 ..ib7 17 tLl£2 aS 1 8
26 ... -i£8 27 l:tg7+ Wxh8 28 .l:f.xg6+ . Black's ..ixf6 ..ixf6 1 9 tLlg4 a4 20 lLlxf6+ gxf6 2 1
best chance is 25 ...gxf5! 26 ..ih8 eS! lLld2 W £8 22 'ir'e3 We7 gave a n unclear po­
(26 ... -i£8 27 .l:f.xfS! exfS 28 .l:f.g7+ Wxh8 29 sition in Morovic Fernandez-Zapata, Cien­
.l:f.g6+ mates) 27 'il'xeS 'ii'g6 28 l:txe7 .l:f.xe7 fuegos 1 996.
29 'ii'xe7 Wxh8 30 'ii'e S+ 'ii'g7 31 .l:%.xf5 l:td8 c322) 12 ..id2 b6 is a position discussed
32 h3 'ii'x eS 33 l:txeS l:td2 34 l:txe4 l:txa2 35 in Game 9, while also playable is 12 ... g6 1 3
.l:.e6 bS 36 cxbS axbS 37 .l:f.b6 and White tLl f3 ( 1 3 .:.ae 1 eS! as now there is n o tLlfS)
wins the ending. 1 3 ... b6 1 4 eS tLlhS 1 5 .:.ae1 (Gallagher­
26 �xe7 exf5 Erdelyi, Ticino 1 994) and now the sensible
Or 26 ...l:txd4 27 l:.g7+ 'it>£8 28 fxg6 1 5 ... -ib7 looks fine for Black.
mate. 9 . . . llJbd7
27 �xeS + 'i'xeB 28 'i'xb6 1 -0 9 ... b6?! is very risky. White plays 10 f4!
�------� and now:
Game 26 a) 1 0.....ib7?! 1 1 eS! dxeS 1 2 fxeS lLlfd7
Beliavsky-Gheorghiu 1 3 .:.xf7!! l:.xf7 1 4 lLlxe6 'il'c8 1 5 'il'hS tLl£8
Moscow 198 1 1 6 tLlx£8 g6 1 7 .ixg6 hxg6 1 8 tLlxg6 .:.h7 1 9
'-------• tLlxe7+ l:txe7 20 lLldS! ..ixdS 21 cxdS 'il'e8
1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 a6 22 'il'g4+ .l:.g7 23 'ii'e4 tLld7 24 e6 lLlcS 25
5 .i.d3 liJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 .i.e7 8 llJc3 i.xcS bxcS 26 d6 :d8 27 'ir'dS Wh8 28 :e1
0-0 9 .i.e3 :g6 29 :c3 :d7 30 :h3+ :h7 31 d7 1 -0
9 f4!? is a very tricky transpositional was very convincing from White's point of
move: view in Smagin-S.Salov, correspondence
a) 9 ... b6 10 ..ie3 transposes to note 'a' to 1984.
Black's 9th move. b) 10 ... 'ii'c 7 1 1 :c1 tLlbd7 (or 1 1 .....ib7
b) 9 ... d5!? is an untried suggestion from 12 fS 'il'd7 13 g4! h6 14 h4! tLlh7 15 gS!
Zeiler. He gives 1 0 eS dxc4 1 1 ..ixc4 ..icS hxgS 16 hxgS ..ixgS 17 ..ixgS tLlxgS 18 'il'hS

76

ike7 1 9 f6 gxf6 20 l:.c2 with a winning at­
tack, Psakhis-Sideif Sade, Moscow 1 983) 1 2
g4! l2Jc5 ( 1 2. . .g6 1 3 g5 l2Je8 1 4 i.e2 i.d8 1 5
ike1 e 5 1 6 l2Jd5 ikb7 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 1 8 l2Jf3
ikc6 19 ikg3 was very good for White in
Geller-Panno, Lone Pine 1 980) 13 i.b1 (but
not 13 g5?! l2Jg4! 14 ikxg4 l2Jxd3 1 5 l:.c2
l2Jb4 16 l:.ccl l2Jd3, as in Marjanovic­
Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1980) 1 3 . .. i.b7 1 4
ii f3
and now:
b1) 14 ... .l:.fd8 1 5 g5 l2Je8 16 f5 e5 1 7 l2Je6
l2Jxe6 1 8 fxe6 f6 1 9 l2Jd5 i.xd5 20 exd5
gives White positional domination, Stypka­
Przewoznik, Gdynia 1 982.
b2) 14 ... l2Jfxe4? 1 5 i.xe4 l2Jxe4 16 l2Jxe4
f5 Qassim-Wians, Sharjah 1 985) 1 7 gxf5
exf5 1 8 ikg3 and the threat of l2Je6 nets
White a piece.
b3) 14 ...e5 1 5 l2Jf5 exf4 1 6 i.xf4 l:tfe8 1 7
b4 l2Je6 1 8 l2Jd5! and White wins material,
Stypka-Grycel, Krynica 1 998.
b4) 14 ...g6 (the best of a bad bunch) 1 5
g5 l2Je8 1 6 b4 l2Jd7 1 7 ikh3 and White has a
strong attack, Lopez Rodriguez-S.Kova­
cevic, Mislata 1 995.
9 ... l2Jc6!? is not played very much,
probably through habit (many Kan players
are reluctant to play like this) . However, it
has certain positive fearures: 10 l2Jxc6 (for
1 0 l:.cl i.d7 see the note to White's l Oth
move in Game 23) 1 0 ... bxc6 and the bishop
on e3 isn't necessarily well placed. 1 1 f4 d5!?
5 i.. d3 liJ f6 6 0 - 0 d6
12 e5!? d4 13 exf6 ..txf6 1 4 i.xh7+ 'ifi>xh7
15 ikh5+ 'iti>g8 1 6 l:.ad1 was played in
Murey-Zapata, La Valetta 1 980. Now
16 ... g6? 17 ikc5 d3 1 8 l:.£2 l:.b8 19 l:.fd2
ikc7 20 l2Je4 rurned out very well for White,
but I prefer 1 6 ...l:.a7! 17 l2Je4 l:.d7, which
looks less clear.
1 0 f4
The most active. One possible plan in­
volves a kingside pawn storm with g2-g4-g5.
For the 'anti-Hedgehog' plan 10 f3 ikc7
1 1 l:.c l b6 1 2 ikd2 i.b7 13 l:.fd1 l:.ac8 14
i.fl see note 'a' to Black's 7th move in
Game 75.
1o . . . .:.es
Preparing to bolster the kingside de­
fences with ... i.f8 and ... g7-g6.
10 ...ikc7?! looks narural but the queen
may well be better off at home if White is
insisting on a g2-g4-g5 lunge. White contin­
ues with 1 1 g4! and now:
a) 1 1 ...l2Jc5 12 i.c2 (but not 1 2 g5?
l2Jg4!) 12 ... d5?! (12...g6 13 g5 l2Jh5 1 4 f5 and
12 ...e5 13 l2Jf5 i.xf5 14 exfS exf4 1 5 l:.xf4
are both good for White, but still preferable
to what happens next) 1 3 exd5 exd5 14 g5
l2Jg4 1 5 l2Jxd5 l2Jxe3? (15 ...ikd8 is the only
move) 1 6 i.xh7+! and White wins, Macieja­
Gratka, Koszalin 1 997.
b) 1 1 ...g6 12 g5 l2Jh5 13 i.e2 l2Jxf4?
(13 ...l2Jg7 1 4 f5 i.d8 is more resilient, al­
though still clearly better for White) 14
l:.xf4 e5 1 5 l2Jd5 ikd8
77
Sicilia n Ka n
(Marulovic-Pikula, Arandjelovac 1 997) 1 6
.l:tx£7!! and Black is lost i n all lines:
b1) 16 ... l:Ix£7 17 lDe6 'tWaS 1 8 i..d2 traps
the queen.
b2) 1 6...'iitx f7 17 lDe6!! 'ifi>xe6 1 8 lDc7+!
'3;£7 (18 ...'ii'x c7 19 'iWdS mate) 19 'iWdS+
'iitg7 20 lDe6+.
b3) 1 6...exd4 1 7 l:txe7 dxe3 1 8 'ii'd4 l:I£7
19 l:tx£7 'iitx £7 (or 1 9 ...\WxgS+ 20 'iith 1
'iitx f7 21 'iWhB!) 20 l:tft + 'iti>g8 21 'ii'xe3 and
White is winning (analysis by Matulovic).
1 1 �h 1
Naturally White can still attack like a
caveman with 1 1 g4 but, with his rook on
e8 and queen on dB, I believe Black is far
better placed to combat it: 1 1 ...g6 1 2 gS
lDhS, with the idea of undermining the sup­
port of gS with ... e6-eS, for example 1 3
i..e2? eS! 1 4 lDfS lDxf4 1 S lDh6+ 'iitg7 1 6
..txf4 exf4 1 7 h 4 i..xgS! 1 8 hxgS 'ii'xgS+ 1 9
lDg4 lDeS and White's position falls apart.
Instead White should take prophylactic
measures against ...e6-eS, for example with
1 2 lDb3, but obviously the attack will then
be a lot slower.
White has a more methodical attacking
plan at his disposal: 1 1 'ii'f3 !? i.. f8 1 2 l:tad1
'ii'c 7 13 'ii'h3 g6 (I prefer to leave well alone
on the kingside and play 13 ... b6, for exam­
ple 1 4 lDf3 i..b 7 and now 1 S eS can be met
with 1 S ...dxeS 16 fxeS ..tcS!) 14 lDf3 b6 1 S
'ii'h4 i..b7 1 6 lDgS! h6?! 1 7 lDxf7! 'iitx f7 1 8
e S dxeS 1 9 fxeS 'ii'x eS 20 i..e4! 'iitg8 21
i..d 4 i..c S 22 i..xb7 gS! 23 'ii' f2 lDg4 24
..txeS i..x f2+ 2S l:txf2 lDdxeS 26 l:te2 and
White had a better endgame, Ljubojevic­
Bellon Lopez, Linares 1 98 1 . However,
16 ...i..g7! doesn't look bad for Black.
1 1 . . . i.f8 1 2 g4?!
Repeating what I said in the previous
note, Black is now in a good position to
defuse this idea.
In this instance a more positional plan
proves to be stronger: 1 2 'ii'e 2 'ii'c 7 (I think
1 2... g6!?, planning a possible ...e6-eS, is
stronger) 1 3 l:tac1 b6 14 b4! ..tb7 1 S lDb3!
78
(planning to break up Black's queenside
with a2-a4-aS) 1 S ... l:tac8 16 a4 'iWbB 17 aS
and now in Pritchett-Gheorghiu, London
1 980, the Romanian GM played the the­
matic break 17 ... dS but after 1 8 cxdS i.. xb4
1 9 lDa2! l:txc1 20 i..x cl bxaS 21 lDxb4 axb4
22 dxe6?! fxe6 23 eS lDdS 24 'iWhS lDf8 2S
fS White's attack was too strong.
1 2 . . . g6! 1 3 g5 lDh5
Now Black plans to undermine the sup­
port of the gS-pawn with ... e6-eS so White
is forced into complications which are not
unfavourable for Black.
1 4 f5 exf5 1 5 lDxf5 ltJc5! 1 6 ltJd5 lDxe4
1 7 i.d4 i.xf5!?
Also playable is 17 ...'iWxgS 1 8 i..e3 (18
i..xe4? l:txe4 1 9 'ii'x hS gxhS 20 l:tg1 J:tg4 21
lDf6+ 'ii'xf6 and Black wins) 18 ...'ii'd8 19
i..b 6, when Black can either repeat with
19 ... \WgS 20 i..e3 or try for more with
1 9 ...'ii'd 7!?.
1 8 �xf5 i.g7
18 ... gxfS? 19 'ii'x hS gives White a win­
ning attack: 1 9 ...i..g7 20 i..xg7 'iit xg7 21
i..xe4 fxe4 22 'ii'h 6+ 'iith 8 23 lDf6.
19 i.xg7 �xg7 20 .i.xe4 l:!.xe4 21
�xf7 + �xf7 22 'i'f3 + �gB!
The right square. 22...'iitg7?! 23 'ii'xe4 is
good for White as 23 ... \WxgS? loses to 24
lDc7!.
23 'i'xe4 'i'xg5 24 'i'e6 + �hB 25 �f1
White has just enough compensation to
keep the balance, but no more.

25 . . Jtd8 26 b3 b5 27 'ife4 bxc4 28
bxc4 'ife5 29 'ifxe5 + dxe5 30 l:!f7 li:Jf4
31 li:Jxf4 Y2 -Y,
Game 27
Hellers-Gheorghiu
Haifa 1989
1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6
5 .1J.. d 3 li:Jf6 6 0-0 d6 7 f4! ?
A s with the line 6. . .'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e2 d6 8 f4!?
(see Game 1 3), White doesn't need to
commit himself to playing c2-c4 and can
instead take immediate action on the king­
side.
7 . . . g6!?
As we have seen many times before, the
kingside fianchetto is always the idealistic
choice against an £2-f4 plan. Whether in this
particular instance it's actually the best
5 .1J.. d3 li:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6
move i s another question.
Other possibilities for Black include:
a) I don't like 7 ... 'ii'b 6?!, which can be
met simply by 8 �h 1 ! .
b) 7. . .1t...e 7 8 �h1 lLlbd7 (8. . .'ii'c 7 9 lt:Jc3
transposes to a line considered in Chapter 6,
but there is no point committing the queen
so soon) 9 'it' £3!? lLlc5 1 0 lt:Jc3 0-0 1 1 1t...e 3
'ii'c 7 12 a4 (12 g4!? b5 13 g5 lt:Jfd7 14 a3
1t...b7 is unclear) 12 ... b6 13 f5 e5 14 lt:Jb3
lt:Jxd3 (14... 1t...b7 1 5 lLlxc5 dxc5 1 6 b3! 1t...c6
17 g4 gave White a strong kingside attack in
Tukmakov-Shamkovich, USSR 1 972) 1 5
cxd3 1t...b7 1 6 l:Iacl 'ii'd8 1 7 d 4 exd4 1 8
lt:Jxd4 l:te8! gave Black good counterplay in
Romito-Carrettoni, correspondence 1 999.
c) 7 ...lt:Jbd7!? keeps options open regard­
ing the fianchetto:
c1) 8 lt:Jc3 transposes to a very complex
line of the Scheveningen: 8 ...'ii'b 6! 9 1t...e3
'ii'xb2 10 lLldbS! axbS 1 1 lLlxbS l:taS 12 l:Ib 1
l:Ixb5 13 l:.xb2 l:.xb2 14 'it'a 1 l:Ib6 1 5 i.xb6
lt:Jxb6 1 6 'ii'c 3 i.e7 1 7 l:Ib1 lt:Jfd7 1 8 'ii'xg7
1t... f6 1 9 'ii'h6 (Anand-Kasparov, Tilburg
1 991) and now 1 9 ... l:.g8! 20 1t...b5 �e7 21
l:Id1 l:Ig4 is unclear according to Kasparov.
c2) 8 �h1 g6 9 fS lLleS! reveals another
advantage of having the queen on d8 over
c7; the f6-knight is protected. Black can
follow up with ... 1t...g7 and ... 0-0.
8 li:Jc3
Another idea is 8 lt:J£3 1t...g7 9 'it'c l . In a
way this plan makes more sense than in the
line 6 ...'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 f4 as White has
obviously not wasted a tempo with the
queen. However, Black has also not 'wasted'
a move with ... 'ii'c7 and the queen is just as
well placed on d8 in this line. The variation
9 ...0-0 10 �h 1 lt:Jc6 1 1 lLlc3 lt:Jb4! 1 2 eS
lLlxd3 1 3 cxd3 lt:Je8 1 4 1t...e3 1t...d7 1 5 'ii' £2
1t...c6 1 6 1t...b 6 'ii'd7 led to an equal position
in Kosten-Cvitan, Haifa 1 989.
8 . . . .1J.. g 7 9 cJi>h 1 0-0 1 0 f5!
I believe that this is the most critical line.
White can also try the lt:JO/'ii'e 1 plan but,
as we saw in the note to White's 8th move,
79
Sic ilia n Kan

this is not particularly dangerous for Black. lent defensive moves.

1 8 h3 lbf1 + 1 9 .bf1 'ilff2 20 'ilfxf2
lLlxf2 + 21 �g1 ..txc3! 22 bxc3 lLle4 23
..th6 ..ta6 24 ..txa6 �xa6 25 c4 �aS 26
cxd5 cxd5 27 llg7 + �hB 28 �d7 �gB

1 O . lLlc6 1 1 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 2 ..tg5! exf5

. .

Following 12 ...l::tb8? White has the the­

matic sacrifice 13 fxc6 fxe6 1 4 eS! dxeS 1 5
lDe4.
1 3 exf5 d5 1 4 'ili'd2 a 5 29 �xd5?
In order t o exchange one of White's at­ 29 a3! preserves some small wmmng
tacking weapons with ... i.a6. chances.
1 5 .l:!.ae 1 'ili'b6 29 . . . lLlc3! 30 �d7 lLlxa2 31 c4 lLlb4 32
1 5 ...i.a6? 1 6 fxg6 fxg6 17 l::te 6! (Gheor­ �g7 + �hB 33 llb7 lLld3 34 ..te3 �cB
ghiu) is very strong for White. 35 .l:!.d7 lLlc5 36 ..td4 + �gB 37 .l:!.g7 +
1 6 fxg6 fxg6 1 7 .l:!.e 7 lLlg4! �fB 38 .l:!.xh7 .l:!.c6 39 .l:!.a7 lLlb3 40
This just about keeps the balance, al­ ..tg7 + �eB 4 1 ..tc3 l::tx c4 42 ..txa5
though Black has to play a series of excel- Y, - Y,

80
 5 i. d3 lb f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

Summary
Development with 7 ... ..id7 (Games 20-23) is certainly a viable alternative to main lines and
there is the added advantage that white players are less likely to have studied these less fash­
ionable variations. As far as I can see, White's best chance of keeping some sort of advan­
tage lies with 1 1 l:td1 (Game 21) and 9 ..ie3 (Game 23).
If Black is going to play ... g6 variations, then I believe that it's best to play those dis­
cussed in Chapter 1 as 7 ... g6 only seems to give White extra options. Lines with classical
development shown in Games 25-26 are very similar to those in Chapter 1 (Games 9- 1 1 ),
with the different queen placements proving to be a minor point. Despite the bad press,
these lines are playable for Black as long as he knows exactly what he's doing regarding king
safety.

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 /bxd4 a6 5 i.d3 /bf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4

7 f4 - Game 27
7 . . . i.d7 (D)
7 ...g6 - Game 24
7 ... ..ie 7 8 lLlc3 0-0
9 'ife2 - Game 25; 9 .ie3 - Game 26
8 /bc3 /bc6 9 /bxc6
9 ..ie3 (D) - Game 23
9 . . . ..txc6 1 0 �e2
10 b4 - Game 22
10 . . . ..te7 1 1 b3
1 1 l:1d1 - Game 21
1 1 . . 0-0 . (D) - Game 20

9 i.e3 1 1 . 0-0
. .

81
 CHAPTER FOUR
5 i.d3 i.c5
1 e 4 c5 2 lUf3 e 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6
5 .td3 .tc5
In this chapter we srudy the variation 5
.td3 .tc5. Black takes advantage of White's
slightly cluttered d-file and attacks the
knight on d4. The idea is to force the knight
to an inferior square before deciding the
furure of the bishop. Generally the dark­
squared bishop ends up outside the pawn
chain along the a7-g1 diagonal, but Black
does also have the option of a more defen­
sive retreat with ... .te7.
Let's take a look at the opening moves:
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6
5 i.d3 .tc5 6 lDb3
By far the most popular response. White
moves the knight again but regains the
82
I
tempo by attacking the bishop. 6 c3 and
other sixth move alternatives are discussed
in Game 4 1 .
6 . . . .ta7
Black's other main retreat here is 6 ... .te7,
heading for a Hedgehog set-up where
White's knight has been pushed from d4 to
b3. For the standard white treatment with 7
0-0 d6 8 c4, see Games 37-38, while 8 f4
'ii'c 7 9 lLlc3 lLlf6 will be discussed under the
move order 5 lLlc3 'ii'c 7 6 .td3 lLlf6 7 0-0
.ic5 8 lLlb3 .ic7 9 f4 d6 in Chapter Six. 7
'ii'g4 is perhaps the most critical variation.
Black can then allow White to caprure on g7
with 7 ...lLlf6 (see Game 39) or prevent it
with 7 ...g6 (see Game 40).
6 ... .ib6 is also possible and often trans­
poses to 6 ... -ta7 lines, although this is seen
as a slightly inferior version as it prevents
the possibility of ... b7-b5. White may con­
sider exploiting this by forgoing 'ii'e 2 and
.te3, playing lines with an early 0-0 and
either 'ii'g4 or c4 and �hl (as he does
against ... .ia7 in Game 36).
7 'iife 2
White prepares to trade off Black's active
bishop with .ie3. Traditionally this plan has
been extremely popular.
The main alternative is 7 0-0 and now:
a) 7 ... lbe7!? is an interesting option,

avoiding 'Wg4 lines. Of course, the flipside
is that Black is then committed to playing
...ltJge7 lines.
b) 7 ...l2Jc6 and now:
b1) 8 'Wg4 is an extremely important idea
which highlights a minus side to Black's
plan - the g-pawn is lacking cover. Black
can either sacrifice it with 8...l2Jf6 (see
Game 34) or protect with 8 ...'Wf6 (see
Game 35).
b2) The plan starting with 8 c4, erecting
the Maroczy Bind, is considered in Game
36. I will also mention 8 �h 1 , planning £2-
f4, as another possible plan.
Other moves tend to transpose: 7 c4
l2Jc6 8 0-0 reaches note 'b2' above, while 7
l2Jc3 l2Jc6 8 'We2 d6 9 ..i.e3 transposes to
the main line. 7 'Wg4 can be found in the
notes to Game 34.
7 . . tt'lc6 8 i..e 3
. b) The move 9 ... b5!? is interesting; Black
8 l2Jc3 d6 9 ..i.e3 transposes.
8 . . . d6
For many years the main line consisted
of Black simply capturing on e3 with
8 .....i.xe3 9 'Wxe3 and now:
a) 9 ...l2Jf6!? allows White an extra oppor­
tunity to instigate complications:
a 1) 10 l2Jc3 0-0?! (1 o. . d6! transposes to
. Or:
Game 33) 1 1 e5! l2Jg4 1 2 ..i.xh7+! �xh7 1 3
'ii'e 4+ �g8 1 4 'Wxg4 l2Jxe5 1 5 'ii'e 2! gave
White a clear advantage in Klinger­
Meinsohn, Bad Lauterberg 1 984.
b) 10 e5!? and now:
b1) 1 0...l2Jg4 1 1 'Wg3 l2Jcxe5 (or 1 1 ...h5
12 h3 l2Jgxe5 13 'Wxg7 with a clear plus -
Klinger) 1 2 ..i.e2 f5! (12... h5 1 3 h3 h4 1 4
'Wc3 win s a piece) 13 h 3 f4! 1 4 'Wc3 'Wh4 1 5
0-0 h 5 1 6 ltJ1 d2! and, despite the extra
pawn, Black's position is a bit of a mess.
b2) 10 ... l2Jd5! 1 1 'Wg3 0-0 looks okay for
Black, who will attack e5 with ... f7-f6.
c) 9 ...d6! is the most exact move. A fter
10 l2Jc3 we reach Game 33.
9 tt'lc3
With this move White keeps the option
open of castling on either wing. White can
5 i.. d3 i.. c 5
also play more positionally with 9 0-0, in­
tending c2-c4 (see Games 31 -32) .
9 . . . tt'lf6
By no means the only choice:
a) I t's also possible to develop the knight
with 9 ... l2Jge7!? (see Game 30).
waits to see what White does before com­
mitting his g8-knight. 1 0 0-0-0 l2Jge7! trans­
poses to Game 30, while 10 0-0 l2Jf6!
reaches Game 29. White can, however, also
keep his options open with 10 f4. A fter
10 ...l2Jf6 1 1 0-0-0 we reach the main line.
1 0 0-0-0
a) 10 f4!? b5 (10 ... e5!?) 1 1 i.xa7 .l:txa7 1 2
0-0-0 reaches the main line.
b) 10 ..i.xa7 .l:txa7 1 1 f4 b5 (1 1 ...e5 12 f5
b5 1 3 0-0-0 b4 gives White the added pos­
sibility of 14 l2Jd5!?) 12 0-0-0 and again we
reach the main line.
c) White can opt for a quieter life with 1 0
0-0 (see Game 29), although it's less flexible
here than on the 9th move as White no
longer has the option of c2-c4.
d) 10 g4!? is an interesting sideline:
10 ...b5 1 1 g5 l2Jd7 (Wolff-Christiansen, San
Francisco 1 991) and now Christiansen rec­
ommends 1 2 f4, assessing the position as
slightly better for White. Black can also play
10 .....i.xe3 1 1 'ii'x e3, transposing to the note
to White's 1 1 th move in Game 33.
1 0 . b5
. .
83
Sicilia n Ka n
I believe this to be the most accurate
move order. For 10 ...0-0 1 1 f4 eS 1 2 i.xa7
�xa7 1 3 fS bS 14 g4 b4 1 S tt:'la4, sec the
note to Black's 1 4th move in Game 28.
1 1 ..txa7
It makes sense to exchange bishops now
as it forces Black to recapture with the rook.
1 1 f4?! is answered strongly by 1 1 ...b4! and
now:
a) 12 tt:'lb 1 does nothing to hold up
Black's quccnside counterplay: 12 ... eS 13
ttJ 1 d2 0-0 1 4 �hfl i.xc3 1 S 'iVxc3 tt:'lg4 1 6
'iVg3 a S 1 7 �b1 a4 1 8 tt:'lc1 'iVc7 19 tt:'lc4
cxf4 20 'iVxf4 tt:'lceS and Black was clearly
better in D.Gross-Bezold, Wi.irzburg 1 99S.
b) 12 tt:'la4 i.d7! and now White has
some problems with his knight on a4, as 1 3
i.xa7? loses to 1 3 . . .tt:'lxa7!.
1 1 .. Jba7
1 1 ...tt:'lxa7? not only looks silly, but 12 cS!
is a very strong reply.
1 2 f4
As we have already seen, move orders are
very important throughout this variation.
Here White could delay f2-f4 in favour of
the immediate 12 g4!? b4 13 tt:'la4. Now
13 ...0-0 1 4 f4 eS 1S fS transposes to the
note to Black's 1 4th move in Game 28,
while 1 3. ..i.d7 14 gS forces 14 ... tt:'lg8.
1 2 . . . b4 1 3 tt:la4
This blocks Black's pawn advance on the
queenside, but White must be careful as in
some lines the knight can be snared by
84
... i.d7 and the c6-knight moving.
I can't find any examples of 1 3 tt:'lb1,
which does little to stem Black's counter­
play on the quccnside: 13 ...'iVc7 14 tt:'l1d2
aS! and Black will continue with ... aS-a4.
1 3 . . . e5
Preventing White from playing e4-eS
himself, although 1 3. .. i.d7 14 cS dxcS 1 S
fxeS tt:'ldS and 1 3. . .0-0 1 4 c S tt:'ldS arc plau­
sible alternatives.
14 f5
Clamping down on the kingsidc. White
has a simple plan of a kingside attack with
g2-g4-gS. The ideas and tactics from this
position are discussed in Game 28.
Game 28
Niggemann-Pfrommer
Correspondence 1998
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6
5 ..td3 ..tc5 6 tt:lb3 ..ta7 7 'ife2 tt:lc6 8
..te3 d6 9 tt:lc3 b5 1 0 0-0-0 tt:lt6 1 1
..txa7 :xa7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 tt:la4 e5 1 4 f5
..td7!
Some exciting correspondence games
have breathed new life into this variation as
far as Black is concerned.
Earlier Black had been playing 14 ... 0-0,
but this move seems to run into a strong
attack on the kingsidc. Nevertheless, there
remain some unanswered questions (sec
variation 'bS2' below). As far as I can sec,

the critical line runs 14 ...0-0 1 5 g4 i.d7
(1 5...ltJd4? 1 6 ltJxd4 exd4 1 7 'ii'£2 and the
d4-pawn drops) 1 6 g5 ltJe8 17 'ii'e3 (so that
the problem knight can escape via b6)
17 ...l:tb7! (it's worth a pawn to keep the
knight imprisoned) 18 i.xa6
and now:
a) Nunn points out the natural 1 8 ...l:ta7,
which had been previously neglected by
players and annotators: 1 9 i.b5 ltJd4 and
here Nunn gives 20 i.xd7 'ii'xd7 21 ltJb6
'ii'c 6 22 l:txd4! exd4 23 'ii'xd4 l:tc7 24 ltJa1 ,
which is slightly better for White, while I
also like 20 ltJxd4 exd4 21 'ii'xd4 l:txa4 22
.ixa4 i.xa4 23 f6! .
b) 1 8. . .l:tb8 i s answered strongly b y 1 9
.ic4!. I was o n the receiving end o f this
over-the-board novelty in a game against
the Russian GM Yuri Yakovich. In some
lines Black does indeed win the a4-knight,
but by that stage White is usually crashing
through on the kingside. Earlier 1 9 'it>b 1
had been tried, but 1 9 ...'ii'c7 20 l:td5
(Speelman-Lobron, Munich 1 992) 20...ltJd4
(Speelman) 21 ltJxd4 exd4 22 l:txd4 i.xa4
sees White struggling to justify himself.
After 1 9 i.c4 we have the following pos­
sibilities:
b1) 19 ... g6? 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 h4 ltJd4 22
h5 i.xa4 23 hxg6 (Yakovich) and the
threats of l:th8+ and 'ii'h3 are too much for
Black to handle.
b2) 19 ... ltJd4!? 20 g6 ltJf6 21 gxf7+ 'it>h8
5 i.. d3 i.. c 5
2 2 ltJxd4 exd4 23 'ii'g5 (Yakovich gives 23
l:txd4 i.xa4 24 e5 as winning, but I'm not
sure how White should continue after
24...'ii'e7!) 23 ... d5 (or 23 ... ltJxe4 24 'ii'xd8
l:tbxd8 25 l:the1 ltJ£2 26 l:td2 i.xa4 27 l:tx£2
d5 28 i.d3 l:txf7 29 l:tf4 and the pawn on
d4 drops, while 23 ...i.xa4 loses to 24 l:thg1)
24 i.xd5 h6 (24... ltJxd5 25 'ii'x d8 l:tbxd8 26
ltJc5 ltJe3 27 l:txd4 l:txf7 28 l:te 1 ltJg4 29
l:ted 1 ltJe5 30 l:td5 l:te7 3 1 ltJe6 wins for
White) 25 'ii'g6 ltJxd5 26 l:thg1 'ii' f6 27 ltJc5
ltJb6 28 'ii'x f6 gxf6 29 l:tg6 l:txf7 30 l:txh6+
'it>g7 31 l:tg6+ 'it>f8 32 l:txd4 and White,
who is picking up a fifth pawn for the
knight, should be winning.
b3) 19 ...'ii'c7 20 'ii'd3 (threatening to
solve the knight problem with ltJac5!)
20...ltJa5 21 ltJxa5 'ii'xa5 22 b3 'it>h8 23 f6
l:td8 24 fxg7 + ltJxg7 25 l:thfl i.e6 26 'it>b 1
and White has a clear extra pawn with a
good position, Chopin-Chorf, correspon­
dence 1 993.
b4) 19 ...ltJa5 20 ltJxa5 'ii'xa5 and now:
b41) 21 ltJc5 'ii'a7 22 g6 hxg6? 23 fxg6
dxc5 24 gxf7 + l:txf7 25 l:thfl ltJf6 26 l:txf6
gxf6 27 'ii'h6 1 -0 was the game Wojnar­
Stepanov, correspondence 1 994, but I'm
not so convinced after the stronger defence
22 ... dxc5! 23 gxf7+ l:txf7.
b42) 21 b3! i.xa4 22 bxa4 'ii'xa4 23
l:thg1 (threatening g5-g6) 23 ...'it>h8 24 l:tg3
l:tc8 25 .ib3 'ii'a 3+ 26 'it>b1 ltJc7 27 11h3
ltJb5
85
Sicilia n Ka n
28 .:.xh7+ ! (but not 28 g6?? lLlc3+ 29
�a1 'ii'b 2+ !!) 28...�xh7 29 'ii'h 3+ �g8 30
g6 .:.fd8 31 f6! and White soon mates.
bS) 1 9 .. .'ith8 (my choice in the game) 20
'ii'd2 20...l2JaS 21 lLlxaS 'ii'xaS 22 b3 .ixa4
(22 ... .:.c8 23 'ii'd S! 'ii'a7 24 �b1 'ii'e 3 2S
.:.he1 'ii'xgS 26 lLlb6 .ic6 27 'ii'aS 'ii'd 8 28
.idS .ixdS 29 .:.xdS .:.c6 30 l2Jc4 and
White eventually converted his advantage,
Yakovich-Emms, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 993)
23 bxa4 'ii'xa4 24 :hg1 lLlc7 (24 ....:.b6 2S
.:tg3 lLlc7 26 l:th3 [Yakovich] seems very
strong for White, for example 26 ...'ii'c 6 27
g6 'ii'xc4 28 .:.xh7+ �g8 29 f6! lLle6 30
.:.xg7+ lLlxg7 31 'ii'h 6 and White mates) 2S
.:.g3 liJbS 26 .ixbS and now Black has two
possibilities:
bS1) Nunn gives 26 ... .:.xbS 27 'ii'xd6 .:tg8
28 .:,h3 'ii'xa2 29 g6 which wins for White
on account of 29 ... fxg6 30 .:txh7+ ! or
29 ... h6 30 l:txh6+ gxh6 31 'ii' f6+ .:tg7 32
.l:td8.
bS2) I prefer 26 ... 'ii'x bS! and believe that
Black is still well in the game, for example
27 .:th3 'ii'c4 28 g6 'ii'xa2 29 lhh7+ �g8 30
'ii'gS 'ifa 1 + 31 'itd2 'ii'd 4+ is a draw by
perpetual check as 32 �e2 'ii'x e4+ 33 �f2
'iix c2+ 34 .:.d2 loses to the surprising re­
source 34 ...'ii'x fS+!! 3S 'ii'x fS fxg6.
Plenty of mind-boggling variations and in
most of them White is winning, but line
'bS2' seems to make a good case for Black's
defence.
1 5 -.e3
White must take measures to rescue the
knight on a4. 1 S 'ii f2 0-0 leads to similar
positions, while 1 S g4? l2Jb8! is good for
Black.
1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 �b6
16 h3 is too slow: 16 ... .:.b7 (threatening
...ltJaS or ...l2Jd4) 17 .ixa6 .:ta7 1 8 .:.xd6
.:txa6 19 lLlacS .:.xa2 20 lLlxd7 lLlxd7 21
.:.xc6 'ii'a8 22 .:.c7 .:.a 1+ 23 lLlxa 1 'ii'xa 1 +
24 Wd2 'ii'x h1 2S .:.xd7 'ili'xg2+ 26 'iie 2
'ii'x h3 and Black's extra pawn told in
Marques-Chorfi, correspondence 1 997.
86
1 6 . . . a5
If Black is unsure about the game con­
tinuation, then 1 6....ie8 also looks reason­
able: 17 liJdS aS 18 l2Jd2 l:tb7 1 9 lLlxf6+
'ii'xf6 20 g4 l2Jd4 was unclear in Ruch­
Chorfi, correspondence 1998.
1 7 i.b5 �g4 1 8 ..g 1
1 8 . . . �d4!
This leads to an amazing sequence after
which Black is a rook down but has a very
strong attack against the white king.
1 9 �xd7?!
1 9 lLlxd4! leads to an unclear endgame
after 1 9 ... 'ii'xb6 20 l2Jc6 'ili'xg1 21 .:thxg1
.ixc6 22 .ixc6 .l:td8.
1 9 . . . �xb5 20 �xf8 a4! 21 �d2
Perhaps 21 lLla1 , although Black's attack
is still dangerous after 21 . . .a3 22 b3 'ifc7 23
'iie l l2Jc3.
21 . . . �d4 22 <t>b1 -.c7 23 .l:!.c1 a3 24 b3
-.c3 25 �c4 l:l.c7! 26 -.e 1 .l:.xc4 27
-.xc3 .l:.xc3 28 �d7 �e3 29 �b6 �e2
30 �a4 l:l.c6 31 l:l.he 1 �xc 1 32 .l:!.xe3
�xa2! 33 g4
Or 33 'it>xa2 l:txc2+ 34 �b1 .:.xg2 3S
.:td3 .:txh2 36 l:hd6 hS! and Black's kingside
pawns will win .
33 . . . �c3 + ! 34 �xc3 .l:!.xc3 35 .l:!.xc3
bxc3 36 �a2 d5 37 �xa3 dxe4 38 lt>b4
e3 39 �xc3 e4! ! 0-1
An incredible finish. White is in
zugzwang, for example 40 gS �f8 41 h4
�e7 42 hS g6 43 fxg6 fxg6 44 hxg6 hxg6 4S

b4 'it>d6 46 b S 'it>cS and White finally runs
out of pawn moves.
Game 29
Hjartarson-Bezold
Bermuda 1997
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 .1Ld3 .1Lc5 6 lLlb3 .1La7 7 lLlc3 lLlc6 8
'i'e2 d6 9 .1Le3 lbt6 1 0 0-0 b5
Despite the fact that White has opted for
a quieter life by castling kingside, it's natural
for Black to continue with queenside opera-
tions.
1 1 .1Lxa7
Or:
a) 1 1 a3 0-0 12 �ad1 eS 13 i.xa7 (13
i.gS?! h6 1 4 i.h4? gS 1S i.g3 i.g4 wins
material) 1 3. .. �xa7 1 4 'ii'e 3 i.e6 with a
comfortable position for Black, Unzicker-
5 .1L d3 .1L c 5
Bezold, Bad Homburg 1 996. This idea of
exchanging dark-squared bishops and then
playing ... e6-eS is a typical equalising plan
for Black.
b) 1 1 a4!? b4 12 ltJd1 0-0 13 i.xa7 lha7
14 ltJe3 ltJaS 1 S ltJxaS 'ii'x aS 1 6 ltJc4 'i'cS
17 ltJxd6!? 'ii'xd6 1 8 eS 'ii'd4 19 exf6 'ii'x f6
20 'ii'e4 g6 21 'ii'xb4 :i.b7 22 'ii'c 3 'ii'xc3 23
bxc3 gave White an endgame edge in Acs­
Sax, Lillafured 1 999. However, Ribli's sug­
gested improvement of 1 4... dS looks okay
for Black, for example 1 S exdS exdS 1 6 aS
:.es 1 7 'ii' f3 (or 1 7 'ii'd2 �ae7) 1 7...�ae7,
when the pawn on aS is just as vulnerable as
the one on a6.
1 1 . Jba7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 lLld1
.
1 3 . . . e5!
Model strategy from Black. After the
bishop exchange, Black puts his central
pawns on dark squares, thus complement­
ing his light-squared bishop and preventing
White from playing e4-eS. It's true that
White has a potential outpost on dS but he
is in no real position to exploit this.
1 4 lLle3 'iib6 1 5 Wh 1 exf4!
Correctly relieving the tension in the cen­
tre and obtaining a very useful outpost on
eS. 1 S ... O-O? would have allowed 16 fS! fol­
lowed by a very straightforward plan of g2-
g4-gS.
1 6 .l:!.xf4 i.e6 1 7 .l:!.af 1
17 ltJdS!? looks more threatening, al­
though after 1 7 ... i.xdS 1 8 exdS+ ltJeS 1 9
87
Sicilia n Kan
'ii'd2 aS 20 a3 bxa3 21 l:txa3 0-0 everything
seems to hang together for Black.
1 7 . . . tt'le5!
With this dominating knight on eS, Black
is guaranteed a comfortable equality.
1 8 tt'lt5 .bf5 1 9 exf5 0-0 20 'i'd2 �b8
21 .te2 .l:tc7 22 �d4 d5 23 'i't4 a5! 24
l:.d2 l:.e8 25 'i'd4 'i'xd4 Yz -Yz
Game 30
Z .Aimasi-Stangl
Altensteig 1994
1 e4 c5 2 tt'lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6
5 i.d3 .tc5 6 tt'lb3 .ta7 7 tt'lc3 tt'lc6 8
'i'e2 d6 9 .te3 tt'lge7
When black players were experiencing
difficulties in the ... ltJf6 lines, many turned
their attention to developing the knight on
e7 instead. One advantage this development
has over the classical ...4Jf6 is that White's
pawn storm on the kingside is generally less
effective as g2-g4-gS does not gain a possi­
bly crucial tempo on the knight.
1 0 0-0-0
Given the reasoning above, castling
queenside is not such an attractive option
for White as it is against ...ltJf6 lines, so
many choose to castle short instead. After
1 0 0-0 Black has the following possibilities:
a) 10 ... bS 1 1 a4! b4 12 4::lb 1 0-0 13 4::\ 1 d2
eS 14 4::\c4 4::lg6 1 S l:tfd1 .ie6 1 6 g3 aS 1 7
:td2 was a bit better for White, E.Berg-
88
Votava, Reykjavik 2002 - Black has some
problems defending aS and d6.
b) I can find only two examples of
10 ... 0-0!?, but I can see nothing wrong with
it. Black is going to castle kingside after all,
so why delay the inevitable? Play continues
with 1 1 l:tad 1 bS! and now:
b 1) 12 a4 (this works better when the
rook is on at) 12 ...b4 13 ltJb1 ltJg6 14
ltJ1d2 'ii'f6 1S .ixa7 l:txa7 1 6 ltJc4 dS 17
ltJb6 ltJf4 1 8 'ii'e3 d4 1 9 'ii'g3 (Bashkov­
Tunik, Minsk 1 993) and now 19 ...eS!
(Tunik) leaves Black standing well.
b2) 12 a3 eS! 13 .ixa7 l:txa7 1 4 1i'e3 .ie6
1S ltJdS l:tb7 16 4::lx e7+ 'ii'xe7 17 4Jd2 aS
was slightly better for Black in G.Ginsburg­
Tunik, Minsk 1 994.
b3) 12 f4!?, leading to play similar to that
in the note to 10 f4 below, is probably best.
c) 10 ... .ixe3!? 1 1 'ii'xe3 eS comes into
consideration given that the rook is not so
effective on a7 when White castles kingside.
Black has to be careful not to play the ... b7-
bS lunge too early (White may hit back with
a2-a4) so the rook often shuffles back to a8
to re-enter the game.
d) l O ... eS is the most common move.
Black takes prophylactic measures against
f2-f4, which will now be met by a pawn
exchange.
Now 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 :txf4 4::lg6 1 3 :tf2
4::\geS 14 h3 0-0 lS l:taft .ie6 was equal in
Otero-Vilela, Havana 1999, as was 1 1 :tad 1

0-0 1 2 tiJdS i.e6 1 3 i.xa7 lha7 14 'ii'e3 bS
15 c3 l:r.b7 16 f4 exf4 17 tLlxf4 i..xb3 1 8
axb3 tLleS, Kotronias-Milov, FIDE World
Ch., Groningen 1 997.
White's main response is 1 1 i.xa7 l:txa7:
d1) 12 f4 exf4 (Black should caprure:
12 ... 0-0?! 1 3 fS! is strong) 1 3 l:txf4 tLlg6 1 4
l:tffl 0-0 1 5 tLldS i..e 6 1 6 'iV £2 l:ta8 was
equal in Kaminski-Milov, Moscow Olym­
piad 1 994.
d2) 1 2 a4 i.e6 13 i.c4 0-0 14 l:tfd1 tLlg6
1 5 g3 l:a8 1 6 tiJdS l:c8 1 7 c3 tLlce7 and
again Black had no problems, Naumann­
Computer P ConNers, Lippstadt 1 999.
1 0 f4!? makes Black think a bit more, as
now 1 0 ... e5?! can be met effectively by 1 1
fS, when suddenly the knight is not so well
placed on e7. Play can continue with 1 0 ... b5
1 1 0-0 tLlg6 12 l:tad1 (12 i.xa7 l:txa7 13
'ii'e3 0-0 1 4 l:tad1 l:td7 1 5 'i¥g3 eS!? 1 6 fS
tLlf4 1 7 tiJdS tiJhS 1 8 'i¥e3 tLle7! 1 9 c4 bxc4
20 i.xc4 tLlxdS 21 i.xdS tLlf6 was at least
equal for Black, Acs-Oral, Varadero 2000 -
White's knight on b3 is very poor) 1 2...'ii'e 7
13 l:td2 0-0 14 <ifi>h1 i.xe3 1 5 'i¥xe3 i.b7 1 6
tLle2 l:r.fe8 1 7 c 3 l:r.ad8 with equality in
Holrnsten-Oral, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
1 0 . . . b5
1 1 �xa7
1 1 f4?! b4! looks promising for Black:
a) 1 2 tLlb1 aS 13 tiJ3d2 'i¥c7 14 4Jf3 a4
1 5 tLlbd2 dS 1 6 i.xa7 l:xa7 17 eS i.d7 1 8
'iV £2 b3! 1 9 a3 bxc2 20 i.xc2 0-0 2 1 <it>b 1
5 �d3 �c5
l:tb8 and Black's attack is the stronger,
Ernst-Sunye Neto, Manila Olympiad 1 992.
b) 1 2 tLla4 i.d7! leaves White's knight on
a4 in some trouble: 13 eS (13 'ii'd2? i.xe3
14 'ii'xe3 tLlc8! 1 5 eS tLlaS 1 6 i.e4 l:tb8 0-1
Saldana-Zapf, correspondence 2000; and 1 3
i.xa7? tLlxa7 Adams-Hjartarson, Paris
[rapid] 1 994 show the precariousness of
White's position) 13 ...tLld5! 1 4 i.xa7 (or 1 4
.id2 dxeS! 1 5 fxeS 'i¥c7! 1 6 l:the1 tLlce7 0-1
Coenen-Chuchelov, Fourmies 1 998)
14 ...tLlxa7 1 5 exd6 i.xa4 1 6 tLlcS 1 6 ...i.c6
17 tLlxe6 fxe6 18 'ii'x e6+ <ifi>f8 19 i.c4 'i¥f6
20 i.xdS 'i¥xe6 21 i.xe6 i.xg2 22 l:thg1
i.c6 23 l:td4 l:td8 leaves White with insuffi­
cient compensation for the piece, Collins­
Sulava, Istanbul 2000.
1 1 . . . l:!.xa 7 1 2 f4
Or 12 'i¥e3 and now:
a) 12 ... 0-0 13 eS!? dS (De Vreugt-Moo,
Zug 2001) and now instead of 13 ... d5, I
prefer 1 3 ... l:td7 as in the main game.
b) 1 2 ... l:td7!? (preventing any tricks with
e4-e5) 1 3 f4 "iic 7 14 g4 i.b7 1 5 h4 0-0 1 6
gS tLlaS 1 7 �bl tLlxb3 1 8 cxb3 (Sanchez
Martin-Goczo, Oropesa del Mar 2000) and
here I like the look of 1 8 ... d5!.
12 . . .0-0 13 e5!?
Perhaps deciding that Black will be at
least equal in any pawn-storming race,
White opens the d3-h7 diagonal and rums
his attentions to the centre.
1 3 . . . l:!.d7 !?
89
Sicilian Kan
Again we see how the rook can be useful
along the second rank.
Black can also block the centre and then
organise counterplay on the queenside:
13 ...d5 14 'ii'h 5 lLlg6 1 5 g3 b4 t 6 lLle2 aS 1 7
lLlbd4 lLlxd4 1 8 lLlxd4 'ii'b 6 1 9 i..xg6 fxg6
20 'ii'e 2 i..d7 21 'iitb t l:tc7 22 l:td2 was
agreed drawn in !.Rogers-Johansen, Mel­
bourne 1 998. White's positional advantages
include a nice knight on d4, but Black's
queenside counterplay mustn't be underes­
timated.
1 4 'ii'e4
Or 14 exd6 l:txd6 and now:
a) 1 5 lLle4 l:td5 16 lLlc3 l:td6 1 7 lLle4 l:td5
is a repetition of moves; if Black wants to
play on he could try 1 6 ...l:td7!?.
b) 15 'ii'h S!? g6 1 6 'ii'c S 'ii'c 7 17 lLle4
looked a bit better for White in Jens­
Haldemann, Arco 2000, but I prefer 15 ... f5!,
killing the bishop on d3 and preventing
lLle4. Black then has time to pursue queen­
side operations.
14 . . . g6 1 5 exd6 l:bd6 1 6 'ii'e 3 'ii'c 7 1 7
lt:\e4 lt:\d 5!
If anything I prefer Black's position. His
pieces coordinate well and his king is
slightly safer than White's. White's next
move compounds his problems by allowing
Black to gain a tempo later on. 1 8 'ii'f2 !?
(Ribli) looks best.
1 8 'ii'g 3? l:.ddS 1 9 �hf1 lt:\ce7! 20 'ii'f2
lt:\f5 21 �de 1 tt:lb4 22 'iPb1 �xd3! 23
90
cxd3 lt:\xd3 24 'ii'd 2 lt:\xe 1 25 'ii'x e1 "ilfc4
26 �f3 i.b7 27 tt:lf6 + �g7 28 lt:\a5
'ii'c 7 29 �c3 'ii'xf4! 30 g3 'ii'd4 3 1
lt:\h5 + gxh5 3 2 lt:\xb 7 l:.bS 3 3 lt:\a5 �dB
34 Wc1 h6 35 tt:lb3 'ii'e4 + 36 'ii'c 2
'ii'e 1 + 37 lt:\c 1 .:td2 0-1
Game 3 1
Parma-Capelan
Solingen 1968
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.a7 7 0-0 lt:\c6 8
'ii'e 2 d6 9 ..i.. e 3 i.xe3
Black can resist exchanging on e3 for the
time being, but normally he will have to
acquiesce in the long run. After 9 ...lLlf6 1 0
c 4 Black can play:
a) 1 O... eS 1 1 lLlc3 i..g4 12 f3 i..e6 1 3
l:tfd 1 0-0 1 4 i.xa7 l:txa7 1 5 iVe 3 l:ta8 1 6
l:td2 and White's pressure down the d-ftle
ensures an edge, Malakhov-Landa, Elista
1997.
b) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 lLlc3 'ii'c7 12 l:tact i..xe3
(Black needs to do this if he wishes to play
... b7-b6) 13 iVxe3 lLle5 1 4 l:tfd l b6 1 5 i..e2
i.b7 16 f4 lLlg6 and we have transposed to
the note to Black's 1 4th move.
For 9 ...lLlge7 see Game 32.
1 0 'ii'x e3 tt:lf6
1 1 c4
Setting up the Maroczy Bind is the main
point to White's decision to castle short. In

contrast, 1 1 tbc3 promises nothing: 1 1 ... 0-0
12 .l:.ad1 'ii'c 7 13 'ito>h1 b5 14 f4 i.b7 1 5
'ii'h3 b4 1 6 tDe2 .l:.fdB 1 7 .l:.del h6! (taking
the sting out of a possible e4-e5) and if any­
thing Black was a bit better in Padevsky­
Smyslov, Monte Carlo 1 968.
1 1 . . 0 0 1 2 ltJc3 ltJe5
.
-
The alternative way to play for Black is to
accept the 'Kalashnikov' pawn strucrure
(reached after 1 e4 c5 2 tt:Jf3 tbc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lDxd4 e5 5 lbb5 d6 6 c4) with 12 ... e5!? 1 3
.l:.fd1 i.e6 1 4 i.e2 and now 1 4. . .'ii'b 8!.
With this move Black keeps defending
d6, prepares to play ... .l:.fdB, and presents an
option of opposing queens with ...'ii'a7. Play
can then continue 1 5 :d2 l:td8 16 .l:.ad1 (16
.l:.cl !? prevents Black's next move) 1 6 ... b5!?
17 cxb5 axb5. Now 18 lbxb5?! .l:.xa2 1 9
.l:.xd6 l1xd6 20 .l:.xd6 tbd4! 21 lD3xd4 .l:.a1 +
22 i.fl exd4 was good for Black in the
game Nicevski-Gheorghiu, Athens 1 969,
but I prefer 18 i.xb5! lbb4 19 tbc1 tbxa2
20 tD1 xa2 ..txa2 when White's passed b­
pawn coupled with the pressure on the d­
ftle promise an edge.
1 3 i.e2 'iic 7 1 4 l:!.fd 1
After 14 l:tacl Black can grab on c4 as
14 ...tbxc4 1 5 ..txc4 'ii'xc4 16 lDd5? can be
answered by 1 6 ... tbxd5!. Instead 1 6 .l:.fd1
'ii'b4 17 .l:.d4 'ii'h 6 1 8 ltcd 1 d5 leads to a
level ending after 1 9 exd5 exd5 20 tbxd5
tbxd5 21 .l:.xd5 'ii'xe3 22 fxe3 i.e6.
1 4 . . . ltJxc4?!
5 i. d3 i. c 5
I believe Black should probably play
more quietly with 1 4... b6, for example 1 5 f4
lbg6 16 g3 i.b7 1 7 .l:.acl l:tfdB 1 8 a3 .l:.acB
19 tbd4 i.aB and White was only a little bit
better in Karpov-Hiibner, Graz 1 972.
1 5 i.xc4 'iixc4 1 6 l:!.xd6
1 6 . . . e5?
After this move Black is lost, but his po­
sition is already difficult in any case:
a) 16 ... b5 17 e5?! lbg4 18 'ii'f3 .l:.bB 1 9
.l:.d4 lDxe5 20 'ii'g3 'ii'c 7 21 .l:.cl f6 2 2 lDxb5
'ii'b6 was unclear in Klovans-Tunik, Par­
dubice 1 994. The move 17 l:tcl ! , however,
looks a lot more threatening to me:
1 7 .....tb7 (or 1 7 ...lbg4 1 8 'ii'g3) 1 8 lba5 'ii'c 7
19 e5! lbg4 20 'ii'b 6 'ii'xb6 21 .l:.xb6 i.cB 22
.l:.e1 and this ending looks very suspicious
for Black.
b) 1 6 ...'ii'c 7! 1 7 .l:.ad1 is also better for
White, although after 1 7 ... b5 1 8 e5 lDeB 1 9
.l:.dB i.b7 Black is hanging i n there.
1 7 l:lxf6!
This exchange sacrifice is simply devas­
tating here.
1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8 ltJd5 .l:td8 1 9 ltJxf6 + �f8
20 .l:l.c1 i.e6 21 h4 'iid 3 22 'iih 6 + �e7
23 'iig 5 �d6 24 ltJc5 'iib 5 25 ltJxe6
fxe6
Or 25 .. .'iti>xe6 26 lbg4 l:t£8 27 'iff6+ 'ito>d7
28 tbxe5+ 'it>eB 29 .l:.c7.
26 'iid 2 + 1 -0
White mates after 26 ...'ito>e7 27 .l:.c7+
'ito>xf6 28 'ii'g5.
91
Sicilian K a n
Game 32
Herschei-Fiensch
Comspondence 1979
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 .i.c5 6 ltJb3 .i.a7 7 'ir'e2 ltJc6 8
..te3 d6
Another possibility for Black is to delay
the advance of the d-pawn: 8 .. .'!2Jge7 9 0-0
0-0 10 c4 eS 1 1 tt:\c3 tt:ld4!? (1 1 ...d6 trans­
poses to the note to Black's 1 1 th move) 1 2
�xd4 exd4 1 3 tt:ldS d 6 1 4 l:tadl tt:lc6?!
(14 ... tt:\xd5 15 cxdS looks only a little better
for White) 15 'it>h 1 i.e6 16 f4 .l:.e8 17 'ifhS
g6 1 8 'ifh6 .i.xdS (Leko-Kramnik, Wijk aan
Zee 2000) and now Leko's suggestion of 1 9
cxdS! looks very good for White, for exam­
ple 19 ...tt:lb4 20 f5 'iff6 21 i.bl d3 22 a3
tt:\c2 23 .l:.xd3.
9 0-0 ltJge7
Experience has shown that this devel­
opment is not very effective when White
can play c2-c4.
1 0 c4!
10 tt:\c3 transposes to the note to White's
1 Oth move in Game 30, but 10 c4 looks
stronger.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 ltJc3 .i.xe3
1 1 ...e5 12 .ixa7 .l:.xa7 13 .l:.fd l i.e6 1 4
'ife3 .Ua8 reaches the same position, albeit
with an extra move played by both sides.
1 2 'ir'xe3 e5 1 3 .l:.fd1 .i.e6 1 4 .i.f 1
92
Uncovering the d-ftle. White has a
straightforward plan of ganging up on d6-
pawn.
1 4 . . . l:!.c8
14 ...tt:\c8 is very passive: 1 5 tt:ldS aS 1 6
.l:.acl b 6 1 7 tt:la 1 ! (this knight is heading
somewhere nice!) 1 7 ... f6 1 8 tt:lc2 .l:.f7 1 9
tt:la3 l:td7 20 tt:lbS .l:.b8 (Unzicker-Petrosian,
Palma de Mallorca 1 969) and now either 21
f4 or 21 g3 (preparing f2-f4) would have
kept a significant advantage.
1 5 .l:.d2 ltJa5
Originally this position was assessed as
equal by ECO, and this seems to have
caught out quite a few players who were
religiously following the 'bible'!
1 6 ltJxa5 'ir'xa5 1 7 .l:.xd6 ..txc4 1 8 l:!.d7!
Naturally! The double attack nets White a
pawn.
1 8 . . . ..txf 1 1 9 .l:.xf1
19 .U.xe7 also looks good.
1 9 . . . 'ir'b4??
Given that this was a postal game, there's
really no excuse for this incredible blunder.
I suspect, however, that Black was simply
following what had gone on before.
19 ...tt:\c6! is best: 20 .l:txb7 .U.b8 21 l:txb8
.l:.xb8 22 b3 tt:ld4 23 'it>h 1 .l:.c8 24 .l:tcl h6
and it won't be easy for White to convert
his extra pawn, Leroy-Davies, correspon­
dence 1 982.
20 a3!
The 'stem game' had continued 20 'ifgS??

and was eventually drawn in Lewandowitz­
Herschel (!), correspondence 1 973. A dou­
ble piece of luck for Herschel!
20 .. .'ii' x b2 21 lL:Jd1
And White wins a piece ...
21 . . .'ii'a 1 22 l:be7 b5 23 'ii'b 3 llc 1 24
lL:Je3 �xf1 + 25 lL:Jxf1 'ii'd 4 26 'ii'd 5 'ii'c3
27 'ii'd 6 a5 28 �xeS b4 29 �xa5 b3 30
llb5 1 -0
Game 33
Kengis-B.Nevednichy
USSR 1979
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL:Jxd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lL:Jb3 i.a7 7 'ii'e 2 lL:Jc6 8
lL:Jc3 d6 9 i.e3 i.xe3
For many years this was the main line be­
fore black players began allowing White to
exchange on a7 (see Game 28).
1 0 'ii'x e3 lL:Jf6
Also possible is 10 ...lLlge7!?, developing
in a similar fashion as in Game 30. Now 1 1
0-0 0-0 leads to similar play to that in the
note about 10 0-0 in Game 30, the only
difference being that the bishops have al­
ready been exchanged.
White can also play 1 1 0-0-0 and now:
a) 1 1 ...e5 12 f4! exf4 13 'ii'x f4 0-0 1 4
i.e2! was good for White i n Renet-Farago,
Budapest 1 987. The game continued
14 ...ltJg6 1 5 'ii'g3 ltJgeS 16 l:.d2 f5? 17 exfS
i.xfS 1 8 l:thd 1 l%f6 1 9 ltJd4 lLlxd4 20 .l:txd4
'ii'c 7 21 i.c4+!! lLlxc4 22 ltJdS 'ii'c S 23
lLlxf6+ ..ti>h8 24 lLle4 'ii'c 6 25 'ii'c 3 lLleS 26
lLlxd6 and Black resigned.
b) 1 1 ...0-0 12 f4 'ii'c 7?! 13 'ii'h 3! lLlb4 14
.l:thf1 eS 1 5 fS dS 16 exdS lLlexdS 1 7 lLlxdS
lLlxdS 1 8 'ii'h 4! lLlf6 19 g4 e4 20 g5! exd3 21
l:.xd3 gave White a strong attack in Ko­
rolev-Batakovs, correspondence 1 984, for
example 21 ...lLlh5 22 'ii'x hS i.xfS 23 l:.xfS
g6 24 'ii'h4 gxfS 25 l:.h3 f6 26 g6!. Instead
of 1 2 ... 'ii'c 7?!, I believe Black should start
immediate 9ueenside operations with
12 ... b5. After 13 eS Black has no ...l:.d7
5 i. d 3 i. c 5
available as in Game 30, but 1 3 ...d 5 fol­
lowed by pushing the 9ueenside pawns
looks okay (compare with the note to
Black's 13th move in Game 30).
1 1 0-0-0
White can also go for it on the kingside
immediately with 1 1 g4!? and now:
a) 1 1 ...b5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 gS lLle8
(13 ...lLld7 14 i..e2 leaves the d6-pawn vul­
nerable) 14 f4 b4 1 5 lLle2 aS 16 ltJbd4
lLlxd4 17 ltJxd4 and White was a bit better
in Anand-Ninov, Baguio City 1 987.
b) 1 1 ...lLlxg4! 12 'ii'g3 lLlf6 13 'ir'xg7 l:.g8
1 4 'ii'h6 i..d7 1 5 0-0-0 'ii'e 7 1 6 lLla4 0-0-0
17 ltJb6+ ..ti>c7 1 8 lLlxd7 l:.xd7 19 l:.hg1
l:.dd8 was e9ual in Ebeling-Haapasalo,
Tampere 1991 .
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 f4
1 2 . . . 'ii'c 7
The line 12 ... b5? 13 eS! is good for
White, as 13 ... b4 fails to 14 exf6 bxc3 1 5
'ii'e4.
The other way to prevent e4-e5 is with
1 2 ... e5 1 3 fS bS and now:
a) 14 g4!? lLlxg4 1 5 'ii'g3 and now instead
of 1 5 ...ltJf6 16 l:thg1 lLle8 17 lLldS which
gave White a strong attack in S.Hansen­
Fries Nielsen, Aarhus 1 999, Black should
play 1 5 ...'ii'g 5+ 16 l:.d2 'ii' f4 17 lLldS 'ii'xg3
1 8 hxg3 when White certainly has compen­
sation, but there's no obvious way to con­
tinue.
b) 14 i..e2! b4 15 lLla4 'ii'c 7 1 6 g4 i.d7
93
Sicilian Kan
1 7 gS liJd4 1 8 liJxd4 exd4 1 9 l:hd4 ltJxe4
20 lhe4 .txa4 21 .td3 l:.ae8 (or 2 1 ....tc6
22 l:tc4 .U.fe8 23 'ifh3 'ifas 24 .l:td 1 .tbs 2S
l::th4!) 22 l:.e1 and White's advanced pawns
on the kingside promise a clear edge, Chris­
toph-Hollis, Hastings 1 96S.
1 3 g4!?
This is the most ambitious way to play. If
Black declines the pawn offer then White's
attack is quicker than normal as he hasn't
been forced to play a preparatory l:.hgl .
The main alternative is 1 3 .l:thg1 bS Qogi­
cally Black gets on with his queenside op­
era tions) when the assessment of the posi­
tion depends upon the relative speeds and
stn:ngths of the two attacks. Play continues
1 4 t;4 b4 1 S gS
and now:
a) 1 S...liJe8 1 6 liJe2 aS 17 liJbd4 liJxd4
18 'ifxd4 .ta6 19 i.xa6! (19 'ifi>b 1 eS 20
'ife3 a4 21 .l:tg3 was unclear in Arnason­
Suetin, Sochi 1 980) 19 ... l:txa6 20 f5 .l:tc6 21
'ifd3 exfS 22 exfS dS 23 f6! gxf6 24 liJd4
'iff4+ 2S �b1 l::tc4 26 liJfS 'ifi>h8 27 'ifxdS
'ife4 28 liJh6 'ifxc2+ 29 �a1 .l:tc7 30 gxf6
a4 31 'ii'gS 'ir'g6 32 'ii'e3 and Black resigned
in Spitz-Larrouy, correspondence 1 993 on
account of 32 ... 'ifxf6 33 .l:tdfl 'ifc6 34 'ir'gS
'ii'g6 3S 'ii'e S+ f6 36 lhg6 fxeS 37 .l:txf8
mate.
b) 1 S ...liJd7! (many annotators have not
mentioned this despite the fact that it looks
more narural than 1 S ...liJe8) 1 6 liJe2 (16
94
ltJa4 is certainly worthy of attention) 16 ... aS
with a further split:
b1) 17 'ifh3 eS? 1 8 f5 a4 19 liJd2 liJcS 20
i.c4 b3 21 g6 hxg6 22 .l:txg6 ltJe7 (or
22 ... bxa2 23 .l:txg7+! 'ifi>xg7 24 .l:tg1 + 'ifi>f6 2S
'ifh4 mate) 23 .l:tg4 bxa2
24 .l:tdg1!! (go on - have another queen!)
24...al'ii' + 2S liJb1 and White has a winning
attack, for example 2S ... liJxfS 26 exfS liJe6
27 .l:th4 g6 28 f6 and White mates. I
couldn't resist putting in this line, but I
should point out that Black has a strong
improvement with 1 7 ... .ta6! 1 8 eS .txd3 1 9
exd6 'ii'a7 20 l:txd3 a4 2 1 liJbd4 liJxd4 22
liJxd4 'ireS, which is very unclear.
b2) 17 liJbd4 liJxd4 1 8 liJxd4 liJcS 1 9
liJbS 'ii'b 6 20 i.c4 and now:
b21) 20... .l:td8? 21 fS .ta6 22 g6 fxg6 23
.:txg6! hxg6 24 fxg6 was winning for White
in Virtual Chess X-P ConNerS, Paderborn
(computer tournament) 1 999, as there is no
good defence to 'ifh3.
b22) I wouldn't want to question a com­
puter, but 20 ... dS! looks like an improve­
ment: 21 exdS .ta6 22 g6! .txbS (22... hxg6?
23 dxe6 .txbS 24 exf7+ .l:txf7 2S .txf7+
'ifi>xf7 26 l:.dS wins) 23 gxh7+ (23 gxf7+
.l:txf7 24 dxe6 .txc4 2S exf7+ .txf7 26 'ii'e S
g6 looks good for Black) 23 ... 'ifi>h8 24 .txbS
'ii'x bS 2S 'it'eS f6 26 'it'c7 gS 27 fxgS 'it'c4
28 'ifi>b1 .l:tac8 29 'it'a7 with massive compli­
cations.
b3) 17 fS a4 1 8 g6!? fxg6 (1 8 ... axb3? 1 9
 5 i.. d3 i.. c 5

gxh7+ �h8 20 �gS g6 21 fxg6 fxg6 22 Halle 1978, I like 1 8 ...l:tb8! intending ... b5-
�xg6 tt'lf6 23 eS! [threatening �xf6+] b4 with good counterplay.
23 ... tt'lxh7 24 exd6 �f7 25 �h6 and White 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 lLle2 a5 1 7 Wh3
wins) 19 tt'lbd4 tt'lxd4 20 �xd4 (20 tt'lxd4
tt'leS) 20 ... b3!? 21 fxg6 tt'leS 22 gxh7+ �h8
and if I had to choose, I would take Black,
Atanasov-Rodin, correspondence 1 984.
Finally, the line 13 �h3 bS 1 4 g4 tt'lb4 1 5
gS tt'ld7! leads t o the note t o White's 1 5th
move.

1 7 . . . exf5?
The rather obvious-looking 17 ... tt'lde5! is
suggested as an improvement on
MegaCorr2 (a database of over 350,000
correspondence games) without any further
analysis. Now the same plan doesn't work
for White: 1 8 tt'lf4 a4! and there is no tt'ldS
1 3 . . . b5 so White is forced to retreat with the b3-
13. ..tt'lxg4!? 14 'iWg3 tt'lf6 15 l:thgl tt'le8 knight. Therefore the most logical way for­
obviously promises a strong initiative to ward for White looks to be 1 8 f6, which led
White, who has scored well in practice. One me to some incredible complications: 1 8... a4
recent example is 1 6 �h4!? �e7 17 l:tgS f6 19 fxg7 l:td8! (19 ...�xg7? 20 tt'lg3! tt'lxd3+
1 8 l:tg3 g6?! (18 .. .f5 1 9 l::.g S tt'lb4 20 tt'ld4 21 lhd3 tt'leS 22 tt'lhS+! �g6 23 tt'lf6
tt'lf6 was unclear in Ivanovic-Velikov, Saint tt'lxd3+ 24 'ifi>d2! and mate follows) 20 tt'lg3
John 1 988) 19 f5 tt'leS 20 tt'ld4 i.d7 21 fxg6 (after 20 tt'lbd4 tt'lxd4 21 tt'lxd4 a3! it's
hxg6 22 i.c4! and now: Black's attack which is stronger) 20... axb3
a) 22 ... tt'lxc4 23 l:txg6+ tt'lg7 24 l:tdgl 21 tt'lhS (threatening mate with tt'lf6+)
tt'leS (24...l:tf7 25 l:th6 wins) 25 l:t6g3! and
there is no good answer to l:r.h3.
b) 22...tt'lg7 23 l:r.dgl �f7 24 tt'lfS! tt'lxfS
25 exfS l:th8 26 �e4 bS 27 l:txg6 1 -0
Freiknecht-Scheidt, correspondence 1 998.
1 4 g 5 lZ:ld7 1 5 f5!?
Another way to continue the attack is 1 5
�h3 tt'lb4 1 6 a3?! ( 1 6 �bl ! looks stronger)
1 6 ...tt'lxd3+ 1 7 �xd3 dS! 1 8 eS and here,
instead of 1 8 ... i.b7?! 19 l:r.hgl .U.ac8 20 h4
tt'lcS?! 21 tt'lxcS �xeS 22 �d4 aS? 23 �xeS
l:txcS 24 tt'le2 which gave White a big posi­
tional advantage in T.Giorgadze-Bohlig,

95
Sicilia n Kan
Black has two possibilities:
a) 21 ...lbxd3+? 22 l:txd3 'ike7 23 'ikh4!!
(23 lDf6+ 'ilf'xf6 24 gxf6 bxa2 25 Wd2 a1'ilf'
26 l:ha1 l:ha1 27 'ikh4 e5! wins for Black)
23 ... bxa2 24 Wd2 a1'ik 25 l:ha1 l:.xa1 26
l:lh3! h6 27 lDf6+ 'ilf'xf6 28 gxf6 and White
wms.
b) 21 ...lbg4! 22 'il'xg4 (or 22 e5 lbcxe5 23
�xh7+ Wxh7 24 g6+ Wxg6 and Black
wins) 22 ...lbe5 23 'ilf'h3 lbxd3+ 24 'ii'xd3
bxa2 25 Wd2 'il'c5 looks winning for Black.
It may be that this is just the tip of the
iceberg and that there are several other pos­
sibilities for both sides, but it does show
you how a whole line can be (sometimes
incorrectly) written off just as a result of
one high-profile game.
1 8 exf5 �de5 1 9 �f4 a4 20 �d5 'jj'd 8
21 .:l.hg 1 !
2 1 o o o�xd3 + ?
Another mistake, although by now Black
is in a difficult position. Gipslis gives the
line 21...axb3 22 lDf6+ gxf6 23 'ilf'h6! lbg6!
(23 ... Wh8 24 gxf6 l::tg8 25 l::tg7 lbxd3+ 26
:xd3 �xfS 27 l::th 3! and White wins) 24
fxg6 fxg6 25 �xg6! l::ta7 26 gxf6 hxg6! and
then Nunn continues the analysis with 27
.l:l.xg6+ Wf7 28 l::te 1 ! lbe5 29 l::tg 7+ We6 30
1:.xa7 bxa2 31 'ii'h 3+ Wd5 32 'ii'b 3+ Wc6
33 'il'xa2 'with a slight material plus for
White together with a raging attack'. Indeed,
it's very doubtful that Black can survive in
this final position.
96
22 .:.xd3 �e5 23 �f6 + ! gxf6 24 Wh6! !
�xd3 + 25 �b 1 ! fxg5
Or 25 .. oWh8 26 g6! fxg6 27 fxg6.
26 f6 Wxf6 27 Wxf6
The smoke has cleared, leaving White
with a winning material advantage.
27 og4 28 Wg5 + �h8 29 Wt6 + �g8
0 0
30 �d4 �e5 31 h3 h5 32 Wg5 + �g6
33 Wxh5 gxh3 34 Wd5 i.e6 35 �xe6
h2 36 l:.xg6 + 1 -0
Game34
J . Horvath-Farago
Budapest 1987
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 �b3 i.a7 7 0-0
The immediate 7 'iig4 is not so effective:
7 ...lbf6 8 'iig3 (the point is that 8 'ilf'xg7?
runs into 8 ...l1g8 9 'ilf'h6 �x£2+!) 8 .. od6 9
lbc3 lbc6 10 0-0 h5!? (10... b5, 10 ...lbe5 and
10 ... 0-0 are also playable, but I like this
move) and now:
a) 1 1 Wh 1 lbe5 12 f4 h4 1 3 'ilf'e1 (13
'ikxg7?? lbg6!) 13. ..lbxd3 1 4 cxd3 h3 15 g3
b5 and Black's two bishops will point im­
pressively towards the white king, Mainka­
Kengis, Germany 1 997.
b) 1 1 'ii'xg7 (1 can't find any examples of
this move) 1 1 ...l::tg8 12 'ikh6 lbg4 13 'ilf'xh5
(13 'ii'h7 lDf6 repeats moves) 1 3. ..'ilf'f6 1 4
lbd 1 'ikg7! 1 5 'il'h3 l:lh8 1 6 'ii'g3 l::tx h2 and
...'ii'h 8! is corning.
c) 1 1 i.e3 h4 12 'ifxg7 l::th7 13 'ikg5 l::th 5
1 4 'il'g7 l::th7 is a draw by repetition.
d) 1 1 i.g5 lDe5 12 i.h4 Wf8 13 l::ta d1
lbg6 14 �e2 lbxh4 1 5 'ilf'xh4 'ilf'e7 16 'ii'g3
e5 1 7 'iid3 i.e6 1 8 'ii'xd6 ('/2-1!2 Boey­
Arnlind, correspondence 1 975) 18 ...'il'xd6
19 l:txd6 �xb3 20 axb3 �d4 21 lDd5 i.c5
22 l1xf6 gxf6 23 lDxf6 is unclear.
7 o o�c6 8 Wg4 �f6
o
For the safer 8 ...'ikf6, see Game 35.
9 Wxg7
For 9 'ikg3?! d6 10 lbc3, see the note to
White's 7th move.

9 . . . J:tg8 1 0 'ifh6
White is a pawn up but Black certainly
has some compensation in the form of
open lines and active pieces.
10 . . . l:tg6!?
The main alternative is 1 0 ...ltJe5 and
now:
a) 1 1 'ir'h3 ltJfg4! 12 ltJc3? (better is 1 2
'ir'xh7 ltJf6 1 3 'ir'h3 ltJfg4 and probably
White should now repeat with 1 4 'ir'h7 as
after 14 i.e2 I like 14 ... 'ir'f6 1 5 'ii'g3 'ii'h8!)
12 ...'ir'f6 13 'ir'g3. Now 13 ... ltJ£3+ 14 gx£3
itJh6 1 5 i.xh6 l:hg3+ 16 hxg3 'ii'x h6 17
�g2 was better for White in Korneev­
Gonzalez Gil, La Coruna 1 999, but
13 ...l:tg6! looks very strong to me: 14 'ir'f4
ltJ£3+ 1 5 Wh1 'ii'h4 and Black is winning.
b) 1 1 i.f4? ltJeg4! 1 2 'ir'h4 (or 12 'ii'h3
e5! followed by ... d7-d5!) 12 ...ltJx£2 13 .l:tx£2
l:.g4 14 'ii'h6 lOgS 15 'ii'x h7 i.x£2+ 1 6
�x£2 l:txf4+ 1 7 'it>g1 'ii'g5 was winning for
Black in Erdelyi-Szeberenyi, Budapest 2001 .
c) 1 1 i.e2!, covering the £3- and g4-
squares, looks to be White's strongest re­
sponse:
c1) After 1 1 ...b5, Ljubojevic's recom­
mendation of 1 2 i.e3! l:tg6 (or 12 ...ltJeg4 1 3
i.xg4 l0xg4 1 4 'ir'xh7) 1 3 'ir'h3 leaves Black
with insufficient compensation for the
pawn.
c2) 1 1 ...d5 and now:
c21) 12 i.g5 ltJeg4! 13 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 4
exd5 'ir'xd5 1 5 g3 'ir'f5 1 6 ltJ1d2 ltJg4 1 7
5 1J.. d3 1J.. c 5
i.xg4 l:txg4 was unclear in Van der Wiel­
Ehlvest, Groningen 1 997.
c22) 12 ltJc3!
with a further split:
c221) 12 ... dxe4 13 i.g5 l:tg6 (13 ... ltJfg4
1 4 i.xd8 ltJxh6 1 5 i.c7! ltJf3+ 1 6 �h1
ltJh4 17 g3 ltJ4f5 18 ltJxe4 [Ribli] leaves
White just a pawn up for nothing) 14 'ir'h4
i.d7 (or 1 4...ltJf3+ 1 5 i.x£3 ex£3 1 6 ltJe4
l:txg5 1 7 ltJxg5 fxg2 1 8 l:tfd 1) 1 5 ltJxe4 i.c6
1 6 i.xf6 'ii'd 5 1 7 i.xe5 'ir'xe5 1 8 i.f3 1 -0
was a pretty convincing argument for White
in the game Hellers-Sjoberg, Malmo 1 994.
c222) Ribli gives the line 1 2 ... d4!? 13 l:td 1
ltJeg4 14 i.xg4 ltJxg4 1 5 'ii'x h7 ltJf6 1 6
'ii'h4 .:.g4 1 7 'ir'h6 l:tg6 1 8 'ir'f4 and con­
cludes that White has a clear advantage. I
agree with this, but I would point out that
Black keeps some practical chances after
1 8 ... 'ii'e 7! 1 9 ltJe2 e5 20 'ii' f3 i.g4 21 'ii'd3
0-0-0.
1 1 'ifh3
1 1 'ii'd2?! ltJe5 12 �h 1 ? ltJfg4! 13 'ir'e2
ltJxh2 was winning for Black in Davie­
Kaplan, Oerebro 1 966. Possible, however,
is 1 1 'ir'h4!? and now:
a) 1 1 ...l:tg4 12 'ir'h3 (a little nuance so
that the rook blocks the c8-h3 diagonal)
1 2...ltJe5 13 ltJ1d2 d5 (13 ... b5!? may be
stronger) 1 4 ltJ£3! ltJx£3+ 1 5 'ir'xf3 dxe4 1 6
i.xe4 i.b8 ( 1 6. . ..:.xe4 1 7 i.g5!) 1 7 h3 .:.gs
1 8 i.xb7 i.xb7 1 9 'ii'xb7 with a clear plus
for White, Santo Roman-Koch, French Ch.
97
Sicilian K a n
1 996.
b) 1 1 ...lLle5 12 .ie2 b5 is interesting as
White can no longer play .ie3. Play can
continue 13 .ig5 .ib7 14 lLl1d2 h6 1 5
.ixf6 nxf6 (Ljubojevic-Lobron, Plovdiv
1 983) and now 1 6 c3 (Ljubojevic) keeps a
slight advantage. Instead, the game contin­
ued 16 :ad 1 ? tt:lg6 17 'ii'x h6 lLlf4 18 'ii'h 8+
We7 19 'ii'x d8+ nxd8 20 .if3 nh8?? 21 e5
and now Black could have won with the
pleasing 21...nfh6 22 g3 lLle2+! 23 .ixe2
nxh2 24 .if3 nh 1 + 25 .ixh 1 nxh 1 mate.
1 1 . . . e5
Planning ...d7-d5.
1 2 'ii'h 4
White offers a draw by repetition, which
is accepted. Playing on involves some risk:
1 2 g3 (Alben-Varela, Buenos Aires 1 999)
and now I like 1 2... h5! 1 3 tt:lc3 d6 14 'ii'g2
h4, with real counterplay against the white
king.
1 2 . . . l:.g4 1 3 'ii'h 6 J:.g6 1 4 'ii'h 4 l:.g4 1 5
'ii'h 6 l:tg6 % - Yz
Game 35
Berthelot-Velikov
Trignac 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.a7 7 0-0 tt:lc6 8
'ii'g 4 'ti'f6 9 tt:lc3 tt:lge7
After 9 ... h5?! White simply retreats with
1 0 'ii'e 2 and will continue with .ie3. The
98
pawn on h5 looks a litde silly.
1 0 i.g5 'ii'g 6 1 1 'ii'h 4
1 1 . . . f6
In Popovic-Schlosser, Brno 1 992, Black
played the 'trappy' 1 1 ...lLle5?? (intending 1 2
.ixe7?? tt:lf3+) but had to resign after 12
.ie2! as there is no good way to deal with
the twin threats of 13 .ixe7 and 13 .ih5!.
1 2 i.d2
12 .if4 lLlb4 13 .id6 lLlxd3 14 cxd3 lLlc6
1 5 l:.fe 1 tt:le5 1 6 'ii'h3 lLlf7 1 7 .ig3 0-0 was
fine for Black in Remus-Figueiras, corres­
pondence 1 997.
1 2 . . . tt:le5!
An improvement over the earlier
1 2...'ii' f7 1 3 Wh 1 g5 14 'ii'h6 'ii'g6 1 5 'ii'h3
lLle5 16 f4 gxf4 1 7 nxf4, which gave White
an edge in Popovic-Martinovic, Novi Sad
2000.
1 3 ..te2 'ii'f7 1 4 Wh1 g5! 1 5 'ii'h 6 tt:\7g6
16 f4
Blasting open the f-ftle, but this does give
away the e5-square forever. I know that the
move 1 6 g3, intending to recapture on f4
with the g-pawn, is more thematic but there
is an obvious risk to the white king along
those long diagonals: 1 6 ... b5! 17 f4 gxf4 1 8
gxf4 tt:lc4! 1 9 f5 exf5 20 ltJdS! (20 exf5?
tt:lge5 21 .ih5? loses to 21....ib7+) 20 ... d6!
and I would have to favour Black in this
very messy position.
1 6 . . . gxf4 1 7 i.xf4 tt:lxf4 1 8 1:1xf4 <j;e 7
1 9 llaf1

1 9 i.h5?! 'iff8! 20 'ifxf8+ .:txf8 gives
Black a better ending due to his dominating
knight on e5.
1 9 . . . i..e 3!
White wins the f-pawn but Black's con­
trol of the dark squares and powerful knight
situated on e5 provide sufficient compensa-
cion.
20 'ilixf6 + 'ilixf6 21 .l:txf6 b5 22 h4?
White's plan to expand on the kingside is
doomed to fail. 22 l"Lld1 i.g5 23 .:t6f2, with
the plan of opposing Black's knight with
l"Llc5-d3 (or l"Lld4-f3), is much stronger.
22 . . . .l:tg8 23 'it>h2 l:.g7 24 'iti>h3 .ib7 25
tt'la5 l:.ag8! 26 tt'lxb7
Or 26 g4 i.a8 and White's position col­
lapses. Black threatens both ... b5-b4 and
...l"Llxg4.
26 . . . l:f.g3 + 27 'iti>h2 lbg2 + 28 'iti>h 1
28 . . . .ig 1 ! 0-1
5 i.. d3 i.. c 5
Game 36
Shirov-Korneev
Spain 1998
1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6
5 i.. d 3 i..c 5 6 tt'lb3 .1La7 7 0-0 tt'lc6 8 c4
d6
After 8 ...l"Llge7 9 l"Llc3 0-0 White should
revert back to the 'ife2/ i.e3 plan (10 'ife2
d6 1 1 i.e3 transposes to Game 32). Instead
play can continue 10 �h1 e5 1 1 f4 exf4 12
i.xf4 (Ulibin-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999) and
now Bologan gives the equalising line
1 2... i.b8! (very aesthetic!) 13 i.xb8 .:txb8 14
'ifd2 d6 1 5 .:tad1 l"Lle5.
9 tt'lc3 tt'lf6 10 'iti>h1
Signalling a different plan to the one in­
volving 'ife2 and i.e3. White intends to
attack on the kingside with f2-f4 and/ or
i.g5, hoping to exploit the absence of a
dark-squared defender on the kingside.
10 'ife2 0-0 1 1 i.e3 would transpose to a
line considered in Game 3 1 .
1 0 . . . h5!?
Dissuading White from playing an Im­
mediate f2-f4 on account of ...l"Llg4. Black
has two other important alternatives:
a) 1 0...e5 (again preparing ...l"Llg4) 1 1
i.e2! i.e6 (1 1 ...h6 1 2 f4 exf4 1 3 i.xf4 l"Lle5
14 c5 i.b8 1 5 cxd6 'ifxd6 1 6 'ifxd6 i.xd6
17 .:tad1 and 1 1 ...0-0 12 f4 exf4 13 i.xf4
l"Lle5 14 i.g5 both look good for White) 1 2
99
Sicilia n Kan
f4 h6 1 3 'it'd3 'tlfe7? 1 4 ltJdS �xdS 15 cxdS
l2Jd4 16 fxeS dxeS 17 l2Jxd4 .ixd4 18 'it'g3!
left Black struggling in Bellia-Haldemann,
Arco 1 999.
b) 10 ... 0-0 and now:
b1) 1 1 'ife2?! eS 1 2 �gS h6 1 3 �h4 gS
1 4 .ig3 �e6 was fine for Black in Sandvik­
Kauko, Finnish Team Ch. 1 998.
b2) 11 f4 'ifc7 12 .id2 l2Jd4 13 �cl
l2Jxb3 (there is no need to rush this;
1 3. ..�d7 is preferable) 14 axb3 �d7 15 g4
�c6 16 gS l2Je8?! (Black should play the
more natural 16 ... l2Jd7, not fearing 17 b4
�d4 1 8 bS? on account of 1 8 ... l2Jc5!) 1 7 b4
'i*'e7 1 8 bS axbS 19 cxbS �d7 20 eS! gave
White a strong attack in Ramesh-Emms,
British Ch. 2002.
1 1 .tg5 'ili'c7 1 2 'ili'd2?!
A mistake. Shirov suggests 12 f4! h4 1 3
'iff3 with an edge t o White.
1 2 . . . ..td7 1 3 �ad 1 lt'le5 14 .te2 .tc6?
Black misses a great chance for counter­
play: 14 ...l2Jfg4! 1 5 �h4 f6! 16 'ifxd6 'ifxd6
1 7 �xd6 gS 1 8 �g3 h4 1 9 �xeS ltJxeS (Shi­
rov) and Black's control of the dark squares
and well-placed pieces provide enough
compensation for the pawn deficit.
1 5 f3!
Preventing any ...l2Jg4 tricks and securing
a clear plus.
1 5 . . . 0-0-0
Given that White was threatening the d6-
pawn, this looks natural. However, now
1 00
White is able to unleash a strong attack on
the queenside. Perhaps 1 5 ... �d8 is a try.
1 6 lt'lb5! axb5 1 7 cxb5 .tea 1 8 �c 1
..tc5 1 9 lt'ld4 'it>b8 20 b4 b6 2 1 a4 h4
22 aS lt'lh5 23 .txh4 g5 24 'ili'xg5 f6 25
'i'e3 'ili'g7 26 g4 lt'lf4 27 bxc5 lt'lxe2 28
lL:lxe2 �xh4 29 c6 �c8 30 'i'xb6 + 'it>aS
31 c7 1 -0
Game37
Shirov-Agrest
European Team Ch., Leon 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 a6
5 .td3 .tc5 6 lt'lb3 i.. e7
The main alternative to 6 ...�a7. Black
prefers to keep his bishop as a defensive
piece on the kingside.
7 0-0 d6 8 c4 b6 9 lt'lc3 ..tb7 1 0 f4 lt'ld7
Although Kan players tend to prefer sys­
tems with ... l2Jd7, Black can also develop
with ... l2Jc6, for example 10 ... l2Jc6 1 1 �e3
l2Jf6 12 'iff3 l2Jd7 1 3 �ad1 'ifc7 14 'ifh3
ltJcS 1 5 ltJxcS bxcS 1 6 fS with an edge to
White, Rytshagov-Agrest, Stockholm 1 998.
Significantly, perhaps, Agrest has since
switched to 10 ... l2Jd7.
1 1 .te3
With this move White auns for 'third
rank' set-up, which will be completed with
'iff3. For the main alternative 1 1 'ife2, see
Game 38.
1 1 . . .lt'lgf6 1 2 'ili'f3

From here the queen has options to go
to both g3 and h3. On g3 it attacks the g7-
pawn while on h3, combined with f4-f5, it
helps to pressurise the e6-pawn. White will
also seriously consider the space-gaining g2-
g4-g5, especially since Black's f6-knight
doesn't have its natural retreat square at d7.
We have reached an important moment;
Black now needs to make a difficult deci-
SIOn.
1 2 . . . g6! ?
By no means the only choice. Black can
also play:
a) 12 ... h5!? (Agrest likes to play this move
- see also Game 38) 1 3 .l:tad1 "fic7 14 h3 g6
(Agrest assesses the position after 1 4... h4 1 5
'i'f2 ltJcS 1 6 ltJxcS dxcS 1 7 e S ltJd7 1 8 fS as
good for White, but I think it's quite play­
able for Black after 18 ...0-0-0) 1 5 "fi f2 ltJcS
16 ltJxcS dxcS 1 7 eS ltJd7 18 ..ie4 0-0-0 was
agreed drawn in Rytshagov-Agrest, Istanbul
Olympiad 2000. After the bishops are ex­
changed Black can aim for counterplay with
...ltJb8-c6. Nevertheless, I still prefer White
and, given that he chose not to repeat this
against Shirov, perhaps Agrest agrees.
b) 1 2...ltJc5 1 3 ltJxcS bxcS 1 4 "fih3 ltJd7
15 eS! ( 1 5 f5 ltJeS 16 ..ic2 0-0 17 fxe6 ..ic8!
[Ribli] is fine for Black as 18 ex£7+? .l::t x£7
19 "fig3 ..ih4! traps the white queen)
1 5 ... dxe5 1 6 f5 1 6 ...ltJf6 1 7 .l:tad 1 "fib6 1 8
fxe6 "fixe6 1 9 ..ifS gave White reasonable
compensation for the pawn, Shirov­
Kveinys, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
c) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 .l:tad1 .l:te8 14 "fih3 "fic8!?
(covering the e6-square although 14 ... "fic7
15 g4! g6 1 6 gS ltJhS 17 f5 exfS 1 8 exfS
ltJeS doesn't look bad for Black) 1 5 g4 g6
1 6 gS ltJhS 1 7 flo ..i£8 1 8 "fif2 "fic7 1 9
..ie2 ltJg7 20 ltJd4 ltJcS 21 ..if3 eS! 22
ltJde2 .l:tab8 (22 ... exf4?! 23 ltJxf4 ltJxe4? 24
ltJxe4 ..ixe4 loses to 25 ltJdS) 23 fS and
now, instead of 23 ... a5 24 ..ig2 which was
good for White in Vallejo Pons-Korneev,
Elgoibar 1 997, I prefer 23 ... gxf5 24 exfS e4!
followed by ...ltJd3.
5 �d3 �c 5
1 3 l:!.ad 1 'i!i'c7 1 4 'ili'h3 h5!?
Again we see this move. Black doesn't
want to commit his king and plays actively
on the kingside. 14 ... 0-0 1 5 fS! is pleasant
for White.
1 5 f5 gxf5!
A big point of 12 ... g6.
1 6 exf5 e5
Black has blocked the centre and now
seeks counterplay down the g-file and along
the long h 1 -a8 diagonal.
1 7 �e2!
White prepares to oppose Black's power­
ful bishop.
1 7 . . .l:!.g8 18 �f3
1 8 . . . �xf3?
Giving up the fight too easily. After this
move White manages to obtain crucial light­
square domination in the centre. Instead
Black should aim for the complications of
1 8 ... e4 1 9 ..ie2 ltJeS 20 ltJd2, which Shirov
assesses as unclear. Now 20 ... 0-0-0?! 21
liJdS! is good for White, so I prefer
20 ... ltJeg4! with ideas of ... d6-d5 and
... ltJxe3.
1 9 'ili'xf3 .l:!.b8 20 tt'ld2! b5 21 cxb5 axb5
22 tt'lde4 b4 23 tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 24 l:!.xd5
tt'lf6 25 :lc 1 'ili'b7 26 tt'lxf6 + �xf6 27
l:!.cd1 h4 28 �f2 'it>f8 29 'ili'h3 :ld8 30
�c5 :lg5 31 �e3 l:!.g8 32 �c5 :lg5 33
'i!i'd3! :d7 34 �f2 l:!.g8 35 h3! 'i!i'c6?
Dropping a pawn, although by now
Black's position is extremely difficult.
101
Sicilian Kan
36 �e4 .:.c7 37 �xb4 i.e7 38 i.xh4 f6
39 .:.1 d2 �c1 + 40 <t>h2 .:.c4 41 �b8 +
<t>f7 42 �b3 �f1 43 .:.t2 �c1 44 .:.d1
1 -0
Game 38
Moberg-Agrest
Swedish Team Championship 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lt'lb3 i.e7 7 0-0 d6 8 c4
b6 9 lt'lc3 i.b7 1 0 f4 lt'ld7 1 1 �e2
As we have seen before, the plan involv­
ing 'i'e2, .td2 and .l:.ae1 is one of the most
dangerous available to White. These posi­
tions should be compared to the ones
where the white knight is on d4. The knight
is obviously less active on b3, but it is also
less vulnerable to counter-attack.
1 1 . . .lt'lgf6 1 2 i.d2
1 02
1 2 . . . h5!?
The most ambitious of Black's options,
though not necessarily the best. Black gives
the knight a square on g4 and can also con­
sider ... h5-h4 and ... lLlh5.
Black's alternatives include:
a) 12 ... g6?! 13 e5! is strong, as 1 3 ... dxe5
14 fxe5 lLlxe5? fails to 1 5 'i'xe5 'i'xd3 1 6
.l:.xf6.
b) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 .l:.ae1 and now:
b1) 13 ....l:.e8!? 14 .l:.f3 .tfB 1 5 .l:.h3 e5 1 6
f5 b5!? (thematic but. . .) 1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8
.txb5 d5 1 9 exd5 lLlxd5 20 a4 doesn't give
Black enough for the pawn.
b2) 1 3 ... .l:.c8 1 4 .l:.f3! (but not 14 e5? dxe5
1 5 fxe5 lLlxe5!) 1 4... .l:.e8 1 5 l:h3 lLlfB 1 6 e5
ltJ6d7 17 'i'h5 g6 18 'i'h6 was better for
White in Kutuzovic-Gallagher, Pula 2000.
c) 12 ...'i'c7 (this looks the safest way) 1 3
.l:.ae1
with a further split:
cl) 1 3 ...0-0 14 e5! looks better for White.
c2) 1 3 ... h5!? 1 4 lLld4! (White needs to get
this knight back into the action) 1 4 ... g6
( 1 4... 'i'c5?! can be simply met by 1 5 lLla4!)
1 5 lLlf3 and now Black's kingside looks a bit
shaky after 1 5 ... 0-0?! 1 6 f5. I believe that
Black should play a waiting game with
1 5 ... .l:.d8, although the question remains
about the final destination of Black's king.
c3) 1 3 ...g6? 14 e5! dxe5 1 5 fxe5 lLlh5 1 6
ltJd5!! exd5 1 7 e6 fxe6 1 8 'i'xe6 ltJdf6 1 9
�b4 lLlg8 20 �xe7 lLlxe7 21 .l:.f? was win-
 5 i. d3 .i. c 5

ning for White in Langheinrich-Glek, Bad

Zwesten 1 999. This game ill u strates how
careful Black has to be against White's 'ii'e2,
.id2, .nae1 plan.
c4) 1 3 ... e5 (this is certainly more playable
here than if the white knight was on d4, but
it still makes a rather strange impression) 1 4
ltJdS (14 fS should b e enough for a n edge)
14 ...'ii'd 8 1 5 i.c3 (or 1 5 fS 0-0 and Black
can aim for ... b6-b5!) 1 5 ...0-0 1 6 lbd2 exf4
1 7 nxf4 lbes 1 8 ltJ£3 l2Jfd7 1 9 b3 g6 and
Black was doing okay in Dunis-Kveinys,
Bogny sur Meuse 2002.
cS) 13 ... nd8 (this should certainly be With some ideas of ...ltJhS, castling
compared to note 'b' to Black's 9th move in queenside and, in an ideal world, even a
Game 1 2, where White's knight is on d4) 1 4 possible ...lbg3 + . White's king can actually
no!? ( 1 4 ltJdS? exdS 1 5 exdS 0-0! and there be misplaced on h 1 !
is no lbfS here; 1 4 i.c2!? is also playable) 1 6lDd5?
14 ...g6 (14... 0-0 1 5 nh3 g6 1 6 eS dxeS 1 7 This sacrifice simply doesn't work. 16 fS?
fxeS l2Je8 1 8 Wh 1 ltJg7 1 9 i.f4 ltJcS 20 gxfS 1 7 exfS h3! and 1 6 eS? h3! show the
lbxcS bxcS 21 i.e4, Dobrowolski­ potential in Black's set-up. Best is 1 6 b4!,
Ostrowski, Krynica 1 997 and 1 4... l2Jc5 1 5 preventing anything coming to cS and pre­
lbxcS dxcS 1 6 nh3 l2Jd7 1 7 eS, Westerinen­ paring a pawn assault should Black dare to
Zagorskis, Yerevan 1 996 were both better castle queenside.
for White) 1 5 lbdS!? (obviously this is not 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 exd5 lDc5 1 8 i.c2 h3! 1 9
forced) 1 5 ... exd5 16 exdS 0-0! (16 ... lbc5 1 7 b4 lDxd5 20 cxd5 ..ltxd5 2 1 lDf3 hxg2 +
lbxcS 'ii'x cS+ 1 8 i.e3 'ii'c 7 1 9 i.d4 W £8 20 22 'it>xg2lDe6
fS! gS 21 'ii'd2 .ng8 22 l:.xe7! 'ifxe7 23 .ne3
and White is winning) 17 ne3 ltJxdS 1 8
cxdS i.f6 and Black was doing more than
okay in J urkovic-Sax, Bizovac 2002.
1 3lDd4
Bringing the knight back into play. 1 3
eS?! dxeS 1 4 fxeS lbxeS! exploits the unde­
fended bishop on d3.
1 3 . . .'ii'c7 1 4 'iti>h 1
I prefer 1 4 lb£3!, which looks a good
manoeuvre against ... h7-h5 - sometimes the
knight can utilise the gS-square. Palac­
Fercec, Zadar 1 999 continued 1 4... h4?!
(14... g6!? looks stronger) 1 5 b4 h3 1 6 g3 Black is a clear pawn up and it's White's
lbg4 1 7 lbd4 lbdf6 1 8 lbb3 0-0 1 9 l:tacl king that is more exposed. This adds up to a
l:.ac8 20 bS aS 21 lba4 and Black's slightly decisive advantage for Black.
awkward knights on f6 and g4 gave White 23 i.e4 'ii' b7 24 i.xd5 'ii' x d5 25 'ii' e4
an edge. 'ii' xe4 26 lbe4 .l:l.c8 27 :c 1 :xc1 28
1 4 . . . g6 1 5 :ae1 h4! i.xc 1 'it>d7 29 .l:l.c4 b5 30 :c2 i.f6 3 1

1 03
Sicilian Kan
®g3 ll'lg7 32 lld2 .llc 8 33 i.b2 .ixb2 34
.llx b2 .llc4 35 .lld 2 ll'lh5 + 36 ®f2 .llxb4
37 f5 gxf5 38 ®e3 .lle4 + 39 ®f2 ll'lf6
40 ®g3 l:tg4 + 41 ®h3 ll'le4 42 .llc 2 f6
43 a4 ll'lg5 + 44 ll'lxg5 fxg5 45 axb5
.llh4 + 46 ®g3 axb5 0-1
,...-----.
Game39
lutz-Milov
European Team Ch., Leon 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 ll'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll'lxd4 a6
5 .id3 .ic5 6 ll'lb3 .ie7 7 'ii' g4
Perhaps slightly more accurate for White
is the move order 7 0-0 d6 8 'i*'g4 and now:
a) 8...g6 9 'i*'e2, transposes to Game 40.
b) 8... tLlf6 9 'i*'xg7 ngB 1 0 'ii'h 6 looks
better for White here than the similar varia­
tion in the note to White's 1 0th move, as
Black has expended a tempo on the not-so-
useful ... d7 -d6.
c) 8 ... i. f6 9 'i*'g3! tLlc6 10 tLl1 d2! (target-
ing d6; tiJ1 d2-c4 looks like a good way of
exploiting ... .if6) 10 ... tt:Jge7 (10 ... bS?! 1 1 a4
.U.b8 1 2 axbS axbS 1 3 f4 eS 1 4 tt:Jf3 lUge7 1 S
fxeS dxeS 1 6 i.e3 gave White the advantage
in Rytshagov-Vehi Bach, Groningen 1 997)
1 1 tLlc4 lUeS 1 2 lUxeS dxeS (12 ... i.xeS??
loses a piece to 13 f4 .if6 14 eS) 1 3 i.e3
(Rytshagov) with a comfortable structural
edge for White.
7 . . . ll'lf6
For 7 ...g6, see Game 40.
1 04
7 ...i.f6!? looks slightly better against the
immediate 7 'ii'g4 when compared to the
note above. 8 0-0 tLlc6 9 f4 d6 and now:
a) 1 0 tLlc3 hS 1 1 'i*'f3 tt:Jge7 12 i.e3 'ii'c7
1 3 nad1 nbB! (1 3. .. bS? and 1 3 . .. tLlb4?! are
both answered by 1 4 eS!) 14 a4 b6 1 S nd2
(Am.Rodriguez-Vehi Bach, Manresa 1 997)
and now Rodriguez's suggestion of
1 S ... i.xc3 1 6 bxc3 i.b7 doesn't look bad
for Black.
b) 10 tiJ 1 d2!? tt:Jge7 1 1 'i1i>h1 tt:Jg6 1 2 a4
b6 1 3 tLlc4 0-0 14 i.e3 nbB 1 S .U.ad1 bS
(1S ... dS 1 6 eS i.e7 17 tLlcd2 tLlb4 18 nf3
was better for White in Van Hassterd­
Spassov, Badalona 1997) 1 6 axbS axbS 17
tLla3 (17 tt:Jxd6? 'ifxd6 1 8 eS tLlcxeS 1 9 fxeS
'ifxeS leaves White a pawn down)
1 7 ... i.xb2 1 8 tLlxbS tLlb4 1 9 'i*'e2 and I
prefer White.
8 'ii' x g7 l:.g8 9 'ii' h 6 ll'lc6
9 ... .U.xg2? 10 eS! is strong, as 10 ... tt:Jg4?
loses to 1 1 'i*'h3.
1 0 ll'lc3!?
Recently white players have been es­
chewing the chance to keep the extra pawn
with 1 0 0-0. One older example is 1 0...tLleS
1 1 tLlc3 bS 12 f3 b4 1 3 tLld1 dS 1 4 'i*'e3
i.b7 1 S tt:Jf2 and Black has reasonable
compensation in Psakhis-Kurajica, Cap
d'Agde 1 994.
1 0 . . Jbg2
1 1 'ii' h 3
An important alternative is 1 1 i.d2 and

now:
a) 1 1 ....:lxf2 1 2 'iVh3 .:lxd2 1 3 lL\xd2
doesn't give Black enough compensation
for the exchange.
b) In my opinion, the sequence 1 1 ...d6 1 2
0-0-0 .:lx£2! (12....:lg6 1 3 'ii'e3 lL\g4 1 4 'iVe2
lL\ge5 1 5 f4 lL\xd3+ 1 6 'iVxd3 b5 1 7 f5 was
very unpleasant for Black in Hernandez­
Kurajica, Las Palrnas 1 995) 1 3 l:thg1 lL\e5
14 �e2 �f8 1 5 'iVh4 has been unfairly con­
demned as Black has the vital resource
15 ... l:txe2! 16 lL\xe2 lL\f3 17 'iVf4 lL\xg1 1 8
l:txg1 ..id7 after which White i s struggling
to show anything for the pawn.
1 1 . . ..l:!.g8
Kurajica's latest word on this line is
1 1 ....:lg4!? although 12 f4 e5 1 3 lL\d5 1l2-1l2
Milu-Kurajica, Pula 2001 was hardly a test!
1 2 i.d2
12 ..ie3!? looks more aggressive:
a) 1 2 ... d5 13 exd5 with a further split:
a 1) 1 3 ... lL\b4 14 0-0-0 lL\xd3+ 1 5 l:txd3
exd5 (15 ...e5 16 'iVfl ..if5 1 7 l:td1) 16 1Vf3
..ig4 17 'iVf4 l:tc8 18 l:te 1 was obviously
good for White in Van der Wiel-Kurajica,
European Team Ch., Pula 1 997.
a2) 13 ...exd5!? 14 ..tf5 (14 'iVfl ? d4!)
14 ... ..ib4 1 5 0-0-0 ..ixc3 1 6 bxc3 lL\e7 17
..ixc8 'iVxc8 1 8 'ii'h4! and Black's dark
squares look vulnerable.
b) Van der Wiel suggests 12 ... d6 is just
slightly better for White. I put forward 1 3
0-0-0 e 5 1 4 'ii'fl ..ie6 1 5 ..ic4 to back up
this view.
1 2 . . . d5 1 3 exd5
13 0-0-0?! d4 14 lL\e2 e5, as in
Ara.Minasian-Milov, Batumi 2002, is not a
real test of Black's opening. This does
prove, though, that Milov was prepared to
give this line another go after his game with
Lutz.
1 3 . . . exd5
After 13 ... lL\b4?! 14 0-0-0 lL\xd3+ 1 5
'iVxd3 exd5 1 6 l:thg1 Black's lack o f devel­
opment is starting to show.
1 4 �f 1
5 i.. d 3 i.. c 5
White avoids the trap 1 4 ..if5? d4! 1 5
..ixc8 (1 5 lL\e2?? 'iVd5!) 1 5...'ii'xc8 1 6
'iVxc8+ .U.xc8 1 7 lL\e2 lL\b4, when Black is
doing very well.
1 4 . . . i.e6 1 5 0-0-0 �c7 1 6 tt:le2 0-0-0
1 7 ttJed4 ttJxd4 1 8 ttJxd4
1 8 ... i.c5 !
Giving up the bishop pau In order to
strengthen the pawn structure. I believe that
Black has equalised here .
1 9 tt:lxe6 fxe6 20 f3 'it>b8 2 1 �h3 e5 22
.!:!.he 1 .l:!.de8 23 �h4 �b6 24 �h6 e4 25
fxe4 dxe4 26 i.f4 + 'it>a7 27 i.c4 .l:!.g2
28 l:te2 .l:.xe2 29 i.xe2 e3 30 c3 .l:.e6 3 1
�g5 h 6 3 2 �f5 tt:le4 3 3 .l:!.d3 lLld2 34
.l:.d7 .l:!.e4?
Allowing a stunning combination.
35 .l:!.xb7 + ! 'it>xb7?
35 ...1Vxb7 36 'iVxc5+ is good for White
but Black is obviously still in the game.
36 �d7 + 'it>a8 37 �c8 + 'it>a7 38
i.b8 + !! 1 -0
Game 40
Torres-Smirin
New York 1998
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6
5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.e7 7 �g4 g6
The most common reaction. The ques­
tion is whether the 'extra' move ... g7 -g6 will
be a strength or a weakness.
8 �e2
105
Sicilia n Kan
The queen has done its 'job' of provok­
ing ... g7-g6 and now returns to a more fa­
miliar square. White can also wait a bit be­
fore doing this, for example, 8 0-0 d6 9l"Llc3
and now:
a) 9 ...l"Llf6?! is too rushed: 10 'ii'e 2l"Llbd7
1 1 ..i.h6! and it's White who has benefited
from the ... g7-g6 advance. The rule of
thumb is that Black should wait for White
to play £2-f4 before he plays ...l"Llf6.
b) 9 ...l"Lld7! and now White should trans­
pose to the text with 10 'ii'e 2 as after 10 f4
l"Llgf6 1 1 'ii'e2 White no longer has the op­
tion of ..i.h6.
8 . d6 9 0-0
. .
White normally castles kingside quite
early on. One exception was 9 l"Llc3 l"Lld7 1 0
f4 "ilic7 1 1 ..i.d2l"Llgf6 1 2 g4 b 5 1 3 a 3 ..i.b7
14 g5 l"Llh5 15 :n l"Llc5 16 l"Llxc5 dxc5 and
Black had no problems in Gofshtein-Glek,
Senden 1 997.
9 . . .lLld7
Black keeps developing in typical Kan
fashion. Notice, though, that 9 ...l"Llf6?! is
still answered by 10 ..i.h6!.
An important juncture. White has to de­
cide whether to play c2-c4 or not.
1 0 lLlc3
The main alternative is 10 c4 'ii'c7 1 1
l"Llc3 and now:
a) 1 1 ...l"Ll e5 12 f4l"Llxd3 1 3 'ii'x d3l"Llf6 1 4
l"Lld4 ..i.d7 1 5 b 3 l:%.c8 1 6 ..i.b2 0-0 1 7 'it>h 1
.:.fd8 1 8 .I:.ael gave White an edge in
106
C. Hansen-Akesson, Reykjavik 1 998.
b) 12 ... b6 with a further split:
b 1) 1 2 i.e3 ..i.b7 13 .:.acl l"Llgf6 (Black
could delay this knight move with
1 3 . .. .:.c8!?) 14 ..i.h6 l"Lle5 1 5 h3 l"Llfd7
(15 ... .:.g8!?) 1 6 l"Lld2 g5 1 7 f4 gxf4 1 8 ..i.xf4
h5 1 9 l"Llf3 h4 20 'it>h 1 i.f6 21 ..i.b 1 'it>e7
with an unclear position in Agopov­
Kveinys, Jyvaskyla 2001 .
b2) 1 2 f4 and now:
b21) 1 2... i.b7 (this allows White a quick
assault on the e6-pawn) 13 f5! l"Llgf6 (or
1 3. ..l"Lle5 1 4 fxe6 fxe6 1 5l"Lld4!) 1 4 fxe6 fxe6
15 l"Lld4 'ii'c 5 16 ..i.e3 "ilie5 17 l"Llf3 'ii'h 5 1 8
h 3 with some advantage to White, Holzke­
Kveinys, Wattenschied 2000
b22) 12 ...l"Llgf6! (I think this is more ac­
curate): ·
b221) 1 3 i.d2 ..i.b7 14 f5 (or 1 4 .:.ael h5!
and now the extra tempo for ...g7-g6 looks
useful) 14 ...l"Llc5 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 1 6l"Lld4 'ii'd7
and the strong knight on e5 once again
holds together Black's position.
b222) 1 3 f5!? looks critical: 1 3 ...l"Lle5 1 4
i.h6l"Llfg4 ( 1 4...l"Llcg4 1 5 i.g7 .:.g8 1 6 ..i.xf6
l"Llxf6 1 7 fxe6 fxe6 1 8 e5! dxe5 1 9 l"Lle4 and
14 ... .:.g8 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 1 6 ..i.g5 are both good
for White) 1 5 ..i.g7 ng8 and now:
b2221) 16 ..i.xe5l"Llxe5 17 f6 ..i.f8 with a
bizarre position which I think is fine for
Black. He has a monster of a knight on e5,
useful dark-squared control, can possibly
castle quecnside and can push the g-pawn

up the board!
b2222) 1 6 f6 and now Black can choose
between the incredible 1 6 ...lt:lxh2!? 17 �xh2
dS 18 �h1 (18 cxdS lt:lf3+ 1 9 �h3 'ii'h2+
20 �g4 eS+ 21 �xf3 'ii'f4 is a nice mate)
1 8 ... dxc4 1 9 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 20 it'e3 i.b4 or
the simple 1 6 ... i.b7, with both positions
looking very murky.
1 o.. 'ii'c7 1 1 i.d2
. .U.xa6! 19 'ii'xa6 i.c4 20 'ii'a4 bS 21 'tWaS
White can also play 1 1 a4 but in view of
the next note this seems an unnecessary
precaution.
1 1 ...b6
11 ... bS?! is premarure as it allows White
to strike on the queenside with 1 2 a4 b4 1 3
lt:la2 aS 1 4 c 3 bxc3 1 S lt:lxc3 followed by
lL\bS. But when ... b7-bS is too risky, Black
can often rely on a more 'restrained' fi­
anchetto with ...b7-b6.
1 2 l:tae1 i.b7
1 3 f4
Finally White succumbs to this narural
move. He could wait one further move with
1 3 �h1 !? and now 1 3 ...lL\eS 1 4 f4lt:lxd3 1 5
cxd3 lLlf6 1 6 fS looks promising for White;
as does 1 3 ... bS!? 14 a4 bxa4 1 S lLlxa4lt:lgf6
16 lLlaS. After 1 3 ...lt:lf6 1 4 i.h6 play may
continue 14 ... lL\eS 1 S f4 (1 S h3!?) 1 5 ...lt:leg4
16 i.g7 .U.g8 1 7 i.xf6lt:lxf6 1 8 eS ltJhS and
I would probably just about side with White
here.
1 3 . . . lLlgf6 1 4 e5 lLld5!
1 4...lLlhS 1S exd6 i.xd6 1 6 lt:le4 0-0 17
5 i. d3 i. c 5
'ii'f2 i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 .U.ad8 was equal in Bo­
risek-Korneev, Nova Gorica 2002. I prefer
17 lt:lxd6! 'ii'x d6 18 .U.d 1 , which looks a bit
better for White.
1 5 lLlxd5 i.xd5 1 6 exd6
1 6 i.xa6 0-0 gives Black good counter­
play, while 16 ... 'ii'xc2 is also not bad.
16 i.c3 dxeS 17 i.xa6? 0-0 1 8 fxeS
'ii'c 6 22 i.d2 b4 left White struggling to
find squares for his queen in Wahls-Smirin,
Dresden 1 998.
1 6 . . .i.xd6 1 7 c4 i.b7 18 i.c3 0-0
Black has no problems at all in this posi­
tion. He is fully developed and has no
weaknesses. In fact, one could already speak
of a slight edge due to White's typically
'weak' king (a constant problem for White
after f2-f4 in the Sicilian!).
1 9 'ii'g4 lLlc5 20 lLlxc5 i.xc5 + 21 '1t>h 1
l:tadB 22 l:.d 1 l:.d7 23 'ii'h 3 l:tfdB 24
i.xg6
This tactic fails to some ingenious de­
fence. 24 i.f6 i.e7 25 i.xe7 .U.xe7 leaves
Black with a slight edge.
24 . . . i.xg2 + !
24... fxg6? fails to 2S 'ii'x e6+ .U.f7 26
'ii'e 5!.
25 'ii'x g2
Black is also better after 25 �xg2 'ii'c 6+
26 l:.f3 fxg6!.
25 ... hxg6 26 .ie5
Or 26 'ii'h 3!? 'ii'c 6+ 27 .U.d5 eS!! (a bril-
10 7
Sicilian Ka n

liant defence) 28 .ixe5 f6 and Black will

wind up with the better pawn structure.
26 . . . �d6 27 .l:[xd6 .l:[xd6 28 �h3 <li>fB
29 'i'hB + <li'e7 30 'i'f6 + 'iteB 3 1
'i'hB + ?
White has to take the rook: 3 1 �xd6
.U.xd6 32 'ifh8+ 'ite7 33 'ifh4+ 'itd7 34 'iff6
'itc8 although even here Black has good
winning chances.
3 1 . . .<li'd7 32 'i'f6 'i'c6 + 33 'itg 1 .l:[d2
34 'i'xf7 + WeB 35 'i'xg6 .l:[d1 36 .l:[xd 1
.l:[xd 1 + 37 <li>f2 'i'xc4 0-1

Game 4 1
Golubev-Moroz
Donetsk 1998
._____________....,.
1 e4 c 5 2 4Jf3 e 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 4Jxd4 a6
5 �d3 �c5 6 c3
As well as this move, White can play 6
�e3!? and now:
a) 6 ...'ifb6!? (Black goes 'pawn happy'!) 7
c3 'ifxb2 (7 ... lbc6 transposes to 6 c3 lbc6 7
i.e3 'ifb6) with a further split:
a1) 8 0-0 is promising as 8 ... 'ifxa1 9 'ifc2!
nets the queen, while 8 ... 'ifb6 9 lbd2 'ifc7
1 0 'ifg4 �f8 1 1 e5 gave White a strong ini­
tiative in Buenafe Moya-Munoz Agullo,
Mislata 1 994.
a2) 8 lbd2 'ifxc3? (8 ... lbc6, transposing
to the text, looks best) 9 .U.c l ! 'ifxd3 1 0
.U.xc5 lbc6 (C.Balogh-Szeberenyi, Budapest
1 997) and now 1 1 'ifc1 !! is winning. White
threatens to trap the queen with .U.c3, while
1 1 ...lbxd4 12 .U.xc8+ .U.xc8 1 3 'ifxc8+ 'ite7
14 'ifc5+ picks up the knight.
b) 6 ... d6! looks much more sensible: 7
0-0 (7 'iWg4?! lbf6 8 'ifxg7 .U.g8 9 'ifh6 e5!
looks good for Black) 7 ... lbe7 8 'ife2 lbd7 9
lbc3 b5 10 lbb3 i.b6!? 1 1 .U.ad 1 0-0 1 2
'ith1 e 5 1 3 f4 i.xe3 1 4 'ifxe3 �b7 and
Black has equalised, Noskov-Tunik, Cheli­
abinsk 1 9 9 1 .
6 lbf3 doesn't carry any punch: 6 ...d 6 7
0-0 lbf6 8 c4 0-0 9 lbc3 lbbd7 1 0 lba4 �a7
was equal in Cao-Votava, Budapest 1995.
6 . . . 4Jc6
The most ambitious, but perhaps not the
best move. 6 ... d6 looks perfectly safe for
Black: 7 'ife2 lbd7 8 0-0 lbgf6 9 a4 �a7 1 0
�c2 lbf8!? 1 1 lbd2 'ifc7 1 2 lbc4 lbg6 1 3
�g5 0-0 1 4 �xf6 gxf6 1 5 lbe3 'ifc5 was
unclear in Wedberg-Agrest, Skelleftea 1 999.
7 �e3
7 lbxc6 is also possible, but less critical:
7 ... dxc6 8 e5 (8 0-0 e5, as in Klovans­
Chuchelov, Germany 1 997, is dead equal)
8 ...lbe7 9 'ife2 lbg6 10 f4 0-0 1 1 �e3 i.xe3
12 'ifxe3 lbxf4 1 3 �xh7+ 'itxh7 14 'ifxf4
f6 was agreed drawn in Mainka-Bischoff,
Bad Worishofen 1 997, although there is
obviously still much to play for. Also of
interest is 8 ... 'iWd5!?, hitting e5 and g2. I
think best play is 9 'ife2! 'ifxg2 10 �e4
'ifh3 1 1 'ifc4 f5!, which is very unclear.
7 . . .'ii' b 6?!

108

Black goes 'all in'. There is no turning
back after this move.
The last chance to bail out is with
7 ... i..a 7 (taking measures against the threat
of lL'lxc6) 8 lL'ld2 lL'lf6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 lL'l2f3
10 ...lL'lg4 (10 ... d6 1 1 lL'lxc6 bxc6 12 i..xa7
.U.xa7 1 3 eS [Kurajica] 1 3 ... dxe5 14 lL'lxeS
gives White a comfortable edge due to the
weakness of Black's queenside pawns) 1 1
i.gS (Kurajica-Gerusel, Wijk aan Zee 1 973)
and now Kurajica's suggestion of 1 1 .. .'fic7
looks okay for Black.
8 lLld2!
White can only hope for an advantage by
offering the sacrifice. 8 'ili'b3 'ili'xb3 9 axb3
i.xd4 1 0 cxd4lL'lb4! equalises comfortably.
8 . . .'ii'xb2
8 ...lL'lxd4? 9 lLlc4! 'ili'a7 10 cxd4 i..xd4 1 1
eS! is horrible for Black, for example
1 t ...i..xe3 1 2 fxe3 d5 (or 12 ...lL'lh6 1 3lL'ld6+
<t;e7 14 'ili'f3 l:tf8 15 'ili'g3 'ili'c5 16 0-0lL'lg4
1 7 'ili'h4+ f6 1 8 'ili'xg4 'ili'xe3+ 1 9 <t;h 1 1 -0
L. Milov-Osterwald, Dieren 1 997) 1 3lL'ld6+
<t;e7 14 0-0 'ili'xe3+ 1 5 <t;h1 lL'lh6 16 'W'c2
..i.d7 17 .U.ae1 'ili'd4 18 'ili'd2 'W'h4 19 l:.f4
'ili'h5 20 'ili'b4 <t;d8 21 l:.h4 and Black re­
signed in Luther-Krallmann, Bad Wiessee
1 998 on account of 21 ...'ili'g5 22 l:.xh6!.
9 0-0 'ii'x cJ
9 ... 'ili'b6? is worse: 10 lL'lc4 'ili'a7 (Blas­
kowski-Capelan, Germany 1 978) and now I
like 1 1 lL'lxc6 dxc6 1 2lL'ld6+! <t;e7 1 3lL'lxf7!
<t;xf7 14 'ili'h5+ g6 1 5 'ili'e5!.
Also bad is 9 ...lL'lxd4? 10 cxd4 i..xd4 1 1
l:.b1 'ili'c3 1 2 lL'lc4 and Black, whilst being
threatened with l:.b3, is also getting killed
on the dark squares. It's no relief to ex­
change on e3 as this just simply opens an­
other avenue of attack for White.
1 0 lt:lxc6 i.. xeJ
10 ... dxc6 1 1 lL'lc4! i..xe3 (1 t ...i..e 7? loses
to 12 l:.ct !) 12 fxe3 transposes into the text,
while 1 0 ... bxc6 1 1 lL'lc4! transposes into the
next note.
Not satisfied with one battering in this
line, Moroz surprisingly later opted for
5 i.. d3 i.. c 5
more punishment with 1 0...'ili'xd3? 1 1 lL'le5
'ili'd6 12 lL'lec4 'ili'c7 13 i..x cS 'ili'xc5 14 e5!
cj;f8 15 l:.ct 'W'd4 16 lL'ld6 lL'le7 17 'ili'h5 g6
1 8 'ili'h6+ <t;g8 1 9 lLlf3 1 -0 Rechel-Moroz,
Pardubice 2000.
1 1 fxeJ
1 1 . . . dxc6
1 1 ...'ili'xc6? loses simply to 12 l;lct 'ili'd6
13 lL'lc4 'ili'c5 14 e5 and the knight corning
to d6 will be terminal for Black.
1 t ...'ili'xd3 led to another miniature in the
game Orso-Valenti, Budapest 2000: 1 2lL'le5
'ili'xe3+ 13 <t;h1 1 3...lL'lf6 1 4lL'ldc4 'ili'c5 1 5
lL'ld6+ (Ribli stopped his analysis here, as­
sessing the position as clearly better for
White) 1 5 ... <t;e7 1 6 lL'lexf7 l;lf8 1 7 e5 l;lxf7
1 8lL'lxf7 cj;xf7 19 exf6 gxf6 20 l;lct 'ili'b6 21
l:.xc8 1 -0.
Golubev suggests 1 1 ...bxc6 as an im­
provement, but I find it difficult to believe
in Black's defences: 1 2lL'lc4 and now:
a) 12 ...lL'lh6 13 l;lb1 (threatening l:.b3)
1 3. ..d5 (or 1 3. .. g6 14 e5!) 14 l;lb3 'ili'xb3 1 5
lL'ld6+ <t;d7 1 6 'ili'xb3 <t;xd6 1 7 'ili'c3 must
be winning for White.
b) 12 ...'W'b4 13 'ili'g4 cj;£8 14 l;lab1
(Golubev's suggestion of 14 l:.xf7+!? cj;xf7
15 l:.ft + lL'lf6 16 e5 also looks strong)
1 4 ... 'W'e7 1 5 lL'lb6 l:tb8 1 6 lL'lxd7+! and
White wins.
1 2 lt:lc4
Threatening to trap the queen with either
l;lb 1 -b3 or a2-a3 and l:.c1 , whilst also pre-
109
Sicilian Kan
paring e4-e5 and l2Jd6+. In my opinion
White already has a winning attack.
1 2 . . .'iVb4 1 3 e5 f5 1 4 tt:'ld6 + 'it>f8 1 5
'iVh5 g6 1 6 'iVg5 'iVa5 1 7 g4!
1 10
1 7 . . . 'it>g7
Or:
a) 17 ...'i1Vc7 18 gxf5 exf5 1 9 �xf5! gxf5
20 l:txf5+ i.xf5 21 'i1Vxf5+ �g7 22 'i\Vg5+
�f8 23 .::1 ft + and White mates.
b) 17 ... 'i\Vxe5 18 'i1Vd8+ �g7 19 �c7+
�h6 20 l2Jf7 +.
18 gxf5 exf5 19 .l:txf5! �xf5 20 tt:'lxf5 +
'it>f8 21 tt:'ld6 'it>g7 22 .l:tf 1 'iVc7
22 ... l:tf8 loses after 23 l:txf8 �xf8 24
�f4+ �e7 (or 24... �g7 25 l2Je8 mate) 25
'i1Vf7+ �d8 26 l2Jxb7+.
23 tt'lt5 + 'it>f8 24 tt:'ld4 + 1 -0
After 24... �e8 White finishes off with 25
i.xg6+! hxg6 26 �xg6+ �d7 27 �e6+
�d8 28 l:tf8 mate.
 5 i. d3 i. c 5

Summary
S...�cS is still an underrated system, but gradually strong players are beginning to appreciate
its qualities. One of its advantages is that Black has quite a few different options after
S ... �cS when compared to other lines.
I expect there to be more developments in the 'main line', with Black's improvements
outlined in Game 28 to some extent putting the ball back in White's court. 10 0-0 (Game
29) is harmless, but 9 0-0, with the idea of c2-c4, commands more respect. White isn't aim­
ing for too much here and has reasonable chances of attaining more modest targets. The
line with 8 ... i.xe3 has gone out of fashion but, given some of the analysis in Game 33, per­
haps unfairly so. I predict that we will see more of White's earlier alternatives. In particular,
Shirov's 8 0-0 lt::l c6 9 c4, bypassing the idea of i.e3 (as in Game 36), deserves further study.
6 ...�e7 is also building up a reputation as a viable way for Black. Games 37-38 lead to
rich Hedgehog positions, which offer Black fair chances. Often White's knight being on b3
(rather than d4) works to Black's advantage. In my opinion, 7 'ii'g4 is the real test of 6 ... Ji.e7.
Game 40 works out well for Black, but I don't think we've seen the last of this line.

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lLlb3

6 c3 - Game 4 1
6 . . .i.a7 (D)
6...�e7
7 'ii'g4: 7 ... g6 - Game 40; 7 ... ltJf6 - Game 39
7 0-0 d6 8 c4 b6 9lt::lc3 i.b7 10 f4li::l d7: 1 1 �e3 - Game 37; 1 1 'ii'e2 - Game 38
7 'ife2
7 0-0 lt::lc6
8 c4 - Game 36 8 'ii'g4: 8 .. .'i'f6 - Game 35; 8 ... liJf6 -Game 34
7 . . . lLlc6 8 i.e3 d6 (D)
8 ... �xe3 - Game 33
9 lLlc3
9 0-0: 9 ... lt::lge7 - Game 32; 9 ... Ji.xe3 Game 3 1
9 . . lLlf6
.

9 ...ltJge7!? - Game 30
10 0-0-0
1 0 0-0 - Game 29
1 O . . . b5 1 1 �xa7 J:!.xa7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 lLla4 e5 1 4 f5 (D)- Game 28

6 . . . �a7 B. . . d6 14 f5

111
 CHAPTER FIVE
5 ..td3: Fifth Move
Alternatives for Black
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
In this chapter we will take a look at
some of Black's more unusual 5th move
alternatives after 5 .id3. There's quite a
wide choice of playable moves for Black; as
well as 5.)ijf6 and 5 ....ic5, I mention as
many as nine (!) more here. If nothing else,
this is an illustration of the flexibility of the
Kan.
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 i.d3 g6
This is perhaps Black's most important
fifth move alternative. Black immediately
fianchettoes his king's bishop before devel­
oping anything else. In this line Black's
king's knight is likely to go to e7 so as not
to block the bishop. Also important is the
fact that Black has not touched his d-pawn.
Sometimes Black can strike out in the cen­
tre with ... d7-d5. Black reasons that he can
get away with temporarily leaving the d6-
square so vulnerable because White has
cluttered up the d-ftle with 5 .id3.
5 ...lt:Jc6 is a very solid move championed
by the Latvian GM Normund Miezis, and is
discussed in Games 46-47. After the normal
moves 6 lbxc6 dxc6 the strucrure is sym­
metrical and Black's position is very reso­
lute. The minus side (from Black's point of
view) is that it can be is very difficult to
1 12
I
generate genuine winning chances.
5 ... 'i1Vb6, aiming to shift the knight away
from the centre in a similar fashion to
5 ... .ic5, will be discussed in Game 48.
5 ... lbe7 intends either ... lbbc6 or ...lbec6
and, after an exchange on c6, to recaprure
with the other knight. This is the subject of
Game 49.
5 ...d5!? is a relatively new move that no
one took seriously to start with, but in fact
it's not as bad as it looks and probably de­
serves to be allocated more than just a note
(see Game 50).
Before moving on, here's a round up of
other possible 5th moves for Black:
a) 5 ... 'i1Vc7 can simply transpose back into
main lines after 6 0-0 lbf6. Black can also
play 6....ic5 7 lbb3 i.e7. This then leads to
lines discussed in Games 37-40 with the
difference that Black has committed his
queen to c7 rather early. White can continue
with 7 c4, 7 lbc3 or 7 'i\Vg4.
b) 5... d6 is likely to transpose to Chapter
3 after 6 0-0 lbf6.
c) 5 ... b5?! looks a bit premarure when
White has yet to commit himself to lbc3.
White can break with an early a2-a4 safe in
the knowledge that the response ...b5-b4
does not gain time. 6 0-0 .ib7 7 a4 b4 8
lbd2 lbe7 9 f4 lbec6 10 lb4f3 d6 1 1 'i1Ve1
 5 � d3 : Fifth Mo ve A l terna tives for Bla ck
l2Jd7 12 'ti'g3 h5 13 b3 h4 14 'iih 3 lDc5 1 5
.ib2 proved to be a good attacking set-up
in Wedberg-Dzindzichashvili, New York
1991, although I'm sure there are other rea­
sonable ways to play this for White.
d) Black can also accelerate the queenside
fianchetto with 5 ... b6!? (a favourite of the
Hungarian GM Portisch) 6 0-0 .ib7 and
now:
d1) 7 c4 .tc5 (for 7 ... d6 8 lDc3 lDf6 9 f4,
sec the note to Black's 7th move in Game
25) 8 lDb3 i.e7 9 lDc3 d6 would transpose
to Game 37, while Black could also consider
9... lbc6.
d2) 7 lDc3 d6 8 f4 with a further split:
d21) 8 ... lDd7? 9 f5 e5 10 lDe6! fxe6 1 1
'i'h5+ g6 (1 1 ...�e7 1 2 fxe6 g6 1 3 .ig5+
lbdf6 14 'iif3 .tg7 1 5 lDd5+ .txd5 16 exd5
leaves Black a piece up but his chances of
surviving are slim) 12 fxg6 lDgf6 1 3 g7+
lDxh5 14 gxh8'ti' and White went on to win
in Fogarasi-Portisch, Hungary 1 994.
d22) 8 ... tt:Jf6 and now Fogarasi assesses
the line 9 g4 d5 10 e5 lDe4 1 1 'ti'f3 lbxc3 1 2
bxc3 ltJd7 1 3 .td2 i. e7 1 4 l:.ael a s clearly
better for White. One could also consider
moves such as 9 'i'e2 or 9 �h 1 .
6 c4
6 lbc3 and 6 0-0 will be discussed in
Game 45.
6 . . . �g7 7 t"Llb3
White can also choose to protect the
knight with 7 .tc3 or retreat with 7 lDe2
(see Game 44) .
7 . . . t"Lle7
7 ... d6 is possible but I think that Black
should be looking to keep his options open
regarding the d-pawn. As well as this, White
can now put the d-pawn under early pres­
sure: 8 lDc3 lDf6 9 .tf4! (9 0-0 transposes to
note 'b' to White's 9th move in Game 24)
9 ... 0-0 1 0 .ic2 c5 1 1 .ig5 h6 12 .tc3 �h7
1 3 0-0 lDc6 14 l:tcl .ic6 1 5 .l:!.c2 'iie7 16
.l:!.d2 and White had a pleasant position in
Rowson-Bakhtadzc, Tallinn 1 997.
B lLlcJ 0-0
8 ... d5 is probably prcmarure: 9 cxd5 exd5
10 .tg5! h6 1 1 .txe7 .txc3+ 12 bxc3 'i'xe7
13 0-0 dxe4 14 .txe4 0-0 1 5 .l:!.e 1 left White
with the big development advantage in
Donchcv-Prie, Toulon 1 988.
9 0-0 t"Llbc6
This constirutcs the main line of 5 ... g6
and has been the battlefield of some super­
GM clashes. White's main two moves arc
1 0 .tg5 (sec Game 42) and 1 0 .tc2 (see
Game 43).
Game 42
Anka-Nijboer
Dieren 1 998
1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t"Llxd4 a6
5 �d3 g6 6 c4 .ig7 7 lLlbJ t"Lle7 8 lLlcJ
0-0 9 0-0 t"Llbc6 1 0 .ig5
Along with 1 0 .ic2 (sec Game 43), this is
1 13
Sicilian Kan
White's most popular choice. By pinning
the knight on e7, White prevents Black
from playing the freeing ... d7-d5 advance.
1 0 . . . h6 1 1 ..th4
Keeping the pin. Of course Black can
break it with ... g6-g5 but only at a cost of
slightly weakening the kingside.
The alternative is 1 1 ..ie3!?, allowing
Black to play ... d7-d5 but hoping that the
insertion of ... h7-h6 will be to White's ad­
vantage (the h-pawn could hang in certain
variations) . After 1 1 ...d5 White can play:
a) 1 2 cxdS exdS 13 ..icS l:te8 14 l:te1
i.e6 1 5 i.xe7 l:txe 7 16 tt'lcS dxe4 1 7 ..ixe4
..id4! 1 8 tt'lxe6 (18 tt'lxb 7 'ir'b6! is good for
Black) 1 8 ... l:txe6 1 9 'ir'd2 'ir'gS 20 'ir'xgS
hxgS with a very comfortable position for
Black in Dolmatov-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999.
b) 12 exdS!? exdS 13 ..icS and now:
b1) 1 3 ... d4?! 1 4tt'ld5 (Vl.Gurevich) looks
good for White.
b2) 1 3 ... dxc4 14 ..ixc4 bS 1 5 .idS!? (this
is critical; 1 5 ..ie2 ..ib7 16 ..if3 l:te8 looks
equal) 1 5 ...tt'lxd5 16 tt'lxdS (16 ..ix£8? loses
material after 16 ... ..ixc3!) 16 ... l:te8 17 ..ib6
(17 'ir'f3?! ..ib7 1 8 l:tad1 tt'ld4! gave Black
the advantage in Vl.Gurevich-Kuzmin,
Ukraine [rapid] 1 999) 1 7 ...'ir'h4 1 8tt'lc7 ..ig4
19 'ir'c2 ..ieS (Gurevich mentions 1 9 ... ..if3
but 20tt'ld2! seems like a good reply) 20 g3
(20 h3? ..ixh3! 21 tt'lxe8 i.h2+! 22 �xh2
..ifS+ wins for Black) 20.. .'ii'f6 21 tt'lxa8
l:txa8 and I believe that Black has reason-
1 14
able compensation for the exchange.
b3) 13 ... l:.e8 (the safest) 14 l:tet (1 4
'ir'c2?! allows Black to develops with a gain
of time with 1 4... dxc4! 1 5 ..ixc4 ..ifS)
1 4... ..ie6 with equality.
1 1 . . . g5 1 2 ..tg3 lLle5
Now that Black has weakened his king­
side, 12 ... d5?! is no longer playable: 1 3 cxdS
exdS 14 exdS tt'lxdS?? 1 5 tt'lxdS 'ir'xdS 16
..ih7 +!. The move 1 2 ...tt'lg6?! is also not
good as it allows 1 3 i.d6! l:te8 14 cS which
looks quite unpleasant for Black. Instead
Black makes use of his newly found control
over the f4-square and occupies the eS­
outpost.
1 3 f4!
Although this give Black the eS-outpost
for good, I believe White's attacking
chances against Black's weakened kingside
more than make up for this.
In the game R.Jackson-Oratovsky, North
Bay 1 998, White dithered with 1 3 l:te1 ?! and
after 1 3 ...tt'l7g6! 14 i.ft b6 Black achieved a
solid bind on the kingside.
1 3 ... gxf4 1 4 ..txf4 lLl7g6 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6
..te2 ..tb7 1 7 jfd2 'iii>h 7 1 8 lLld4!
Getting this knight back into the game
and allowing the b-pawn to move to b3 in
order to protect c4. White's position is the
easier to play and although Black has the eS­
outpost one cannot underestimate his
weaknesses (b6, d6 and h6).
1 8 . . ..l:!.c8 1 9 b3 d6 20 .l:!.ac 1 jfe7 2 1 l:!.f2
 5 i.. d3: Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck
lt:ld7?!
This allows the white rook to hit the
third rank and increases Black's problems.
Other moves would leave Black only
slightly worse.
22 l:!.f3
Now Black has to deal with ideas of .l::. h 3.
22 . . .l:!.h8 23 l:!.cf1 lt:lf6 24 i.. d 1 !? l:!.c7
25 i.. c 2 b5
26 lt:ld5!?
This is a wonderfully deep combination.
Unfortunately, there is a flaw at the end.
26 . . . exd5 27 lt:lf5 lt:lxe4 28 lt:lxe7 lt:lxd2
29 l:!.xf7 lt:le4!
After the obvious defence 29 ... .U.xe7 30
.l::.xe 7 tt:Jxfl 31 .td4 .l::.g8 32 .l::.xb7 lLJd2 33
cxdS Black has an extra piece, but is in
zugzwang and is totally lost!
30 lt:lxg6 l:!.hc8?
30 ... .U.xf7! 31 .U.xf7 'it>xg6 32 .U.xb7 bxc4
33 bxc4 .l::. c8 offers Black good drawing
chances.
31 lt:le7 l:!.e8 32l:!.xg7 + �xg7 33 i..d4 +
lt:lf6 34 i.. x f6 + �f8 35 i.. h4 + 1 -0
Game 43
Stisis-Oratovsky
Tel Aviv (rapid) 1 996
1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6
5 i.. d 3 g6 6 c4 i.. g 7 7 lt:lb3 lt:lc6 8 lt:lc3
lt:lge7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.. e 2
With the same idea as 10 .tgS: to prevent
the freeing advance ... d7-d5.
A good example of what can happen if
White fails to do so is provided in the game
Dolmatov-Kotsur, FIDE World Ch., Las
Vegas 1 999: 10 .tf4?! dS! 1 1 cxdS exdS 1 2
'ir'e 2 d 4 1 3 tt:J b 1 lLJb4 1 4 lLJ 1 d 2 lDxd3 1 5
'ir'xd3 lDc6 1 6 lLJ f3 .l::.e8 1 7 .U. fd 1 .tg4 and
Black, with the two bishops and passed d­
pawn, had a very comfortable position.
1 0 . . . f5!
Black is obliged to seek activity. Passive
play will result in White obtaining central
domination with moves such as .tgS (or
.tf4), 'ir'd2 and .l::. fd l .
1 1 f3?!
This move looks very passive and pretty
much gives Black what he wants (a kingside
bind at no cost). White has much better
ways to try to achieve an advantage.
a) 1 1 a4 f4?! 12 aS .teS 13 .td2 'ir'c7 1 4
lLJa4 .l::. b8 1 5 c S ! left Black very cramped on
the queenside in Nijboer-Bologan, Wijk aan
Zee 1 996. Instead Black should prevent a4-
a5 with 1 1 ...b6!.
b) 11 exfS lDxfS 12 lLJe4 'ir'c7 1 3 .l::. b 1 (13
cS!?) 1 3 . .. b6 1 4 .td2 .ib7 15 .ic3 lDeS 1 6
lLJbd2 d S 17 cxdS exdS 18 lLJgS 1We7 1 9
tt:Jdf3 d 4 was fine for Black, Solleveld­
Nijboer, Breda 1 998.
c) 1 1 cS!, clamping down on the b6- and
d6-squares, is a serious test of Black's posi­
tion:
cl) 1 1 ...fxe4 1 2 lDxe4 b6 13 lLJd6! bxcS
1 15
Sicilian Ka n
1 4 lDxc5 ltJd4 1 5 .td3 'ikc7 16 lDce4 .teS
17 .te3! ltJdfS (17 ... .txd6 is met by 18
ltJxd6 'fkxd6 19 .te4 regaining the piece
with some advantage) 18 .l:tct ltJc6 19 ltJxfS
exf5 20 f4 i.g7 21 ltJd6! gave White a clear
advantage, Ermenkov-Kotsur, Dubai 2000.
c2) 1 1 ...b6 12 cxb6 with a further split:
c21) 1 2... fxe4 1 3 ltJcS ltJd4 14 .tgS (14
b7 .txb7 15 ltJxb7 'ikb6 regains the piece)
1 4..._:b8 1 5 ltJ5xe4 l:txb6 16 ltJa4 l:%.c6 was
okay for Black in Isupov-Kotsur, Novo­
kuznetsk 1 999, but I like 1 5 ltJ3a4! after
which the passed b-pawn causes Black some
problems.
c22) 1 2...'fkxb6! 1 3 .te3 'ikd8 14 'ikd2 (14
f3!? may be stronger and is certainly better
here than on move eleven; after 14 .. .f4 1 5
.tcS the big difference is the activity of
White's dark-squared bishop) 1 4... fxe4 1 5
lDxe4 d 5 1 6 lDecS lDfS 1 7 .tgS 'ikd6 1 8
l:!.act h6 and Black's central pawn pair
grants him control over some important
squares, Serner-Klee, correspondence 1 998.
1 1 . . . f4!
Simple and strong. Black obtains a space
advantage on the kingside and blocks
White's dark-squared bishop out of the
game.
1 2 g3 g5!
Keeping the bind and offering the g6-
square for the e7-knight. I already prefer
Black's position.
1 3 g4 b6 1 4 .i.d2 d6 1 5 .i.e 1 lLlg6 1 6
1 16
.i.f2 "ilc7? 1 7 �c 1 lLlce5 1 8 lLld4
18 ltJdS exd5 19 'ikxd5+ �h8 20 'ikxa8
ltJc6! 21 c5 .tb7 22 cxd6 'ikd7 23 .:xc6
.txa8 24 l:%.xb6 leaves White with insuffi­
cient material for the queen.
1 8 . . .�b8 1 9 lLla4 h5 20 h3 hxg4 2 1
hxg4 �f6!
Black's dominance on the kingside be­
gins to show. There is a very straightfor­
ward plan of doubling and then tripling on
the h-ftle.
22 b4 .i.f8 23 lLlb3 "ilh7 24 "ile 1 "ilh3
25 .i.d4 lLlh4 26 "ilt2 l:lh6 27 .i.xe5
dxe5 28 c5 �b7 ! 0-1
White is getting mated. The nicest finish
is 28 ... .:b7 29 ltJxb6 .:bh7 30 ltJxc8 'fih t +!!
31 ..t>xh1 lDxf3+ 32 ..t>g2 l:%.h2+ 33 ..t>xf3
_:7h3+ 34 'ikg3 l:%.xg3 mate.
Game 44
Motylev-Ye Jiangchuan
5hanghai 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 .i.d3 g6 6 c4 .i.g7 7 tt:\e2
White's other main option is to protect
the knight with the developing 7 .te3!? and
now:
a) 7 ... ltJc6 8 ltJxc6 bxc6?! (8 ... dxc6 looks
safer) 9 c5! .txb2 10 ltJd2 .txa 1 1 1 'fkxa 1 f6
1 2 ltJc4 aS 1 3 ltJd6+ �f8 1 4 0-0 gave White
tremendous play for the exchange, Topalov­
Eflffiov, Elista Olympiad 1998.
 5 � d3: Fifth Mo v e A l t e rn a tives for Bla ck
b) 7 . ..l'i'Je7 8 ltJc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 0-0
0-0 with a further split:
b1) 1 1 .l:te1 .l:te8! (1 1 ...h6?! 1 2 .:lc1 ltJd7
13 ltJf3 dxc4 14 ..i.xc4 was pleasant for
White, Ermenkov-Olafsson, Malta Olym­
piad 1 980) 1 2 .l:tc1 ltJbc6 1 3 ltJxc6 bxc6 1 4
i..g5 ..i.e6 1 5 cxd5 cxd5 1 6 ltJa4 'ilfd6 and
the players agreed a draw in this level posi­
tion, ]ansa-Miles, Hastings 1 976.
b2) 1 1 c5! ltJbc6 1 2 ltJce2 ..tg4 13 f3
i..e6 1 4 'ilfd2 'ilfd7 1 5 .:lad1 .:lfe8 1 6 ..i.£2
.l:tad8 1 7 b4 with an edge for White in
Apicella-Abramovic, Val Maubuee 1 989.
c) 7 ... d5!? 8 exd5 exd5 9 ltJc3 (9 cxd5
ltJf6! 10 'ilfa4+ ltJbd7 1 1 ltJe6 fxe6 12 dxe6
0-0 13 exd7 ..i.xd7 14 'i!fb3+ 'it>h8 1 5 ltJc3
ltJg4! gave Black a strong attack, Metaxas­
Oratovsky, Heraklio 1 993) 9 ... ltJf6 10 0-0
0-0 1 1 h3 ltJbd7 1 2 cxd5 (1 2 ltJf3 dxc4 1 3
i..xc4 b 5 1 4 ..i.b3 ..i.b7 was equal in Sakha­
tova-Gipslis, Biel 1 995).
After 12 cxd5 we have the following pos­
sibilities:
c1) 1 2...ltJb6 1 3 'ilfb3! (13 ltJf3?! ltJbxd5
1 4 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 5 ..i.g5 'ilfa5 1 6 'ilfb3 i..e6
gave Black the better minor pieces in Milu­
lordachescu, Bucharest 1 999) 1 3 ... ltJbxd5
14 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 5 ..i.c4 ltJxe3 16 fxe3
..i.xd4 (16 ... 'ilfe7 17 .:lad 1 ! b5?! 18 ..i.xf7+ !
llxf7 1 9 ltJc6 'i!fc7 2 0 ltJd8 ..i.f5 21 ltJxf7
'ilfxf7 22 'ilfxf7+ 'ifr>xf7 23 e4 wins for
White) 1 7 ..i.xf7+ 'it>g7 (after 1 7 ...'it>h8?!,
instead of lordachescu's 18 exd4, White can
obtain a clear advantage with 18 .l:tad1 !) 1 8
exd4 'ilfxd4+ 1 9 'it> h 1 and White has an
edge due to Black's weaker king.
c2) I like 1 2... ltJe5!, for example 1 3 ..tg5 h6
1 4 ..i.xf6 'ilfxf6 and Black has definite com­
pensation for the pawn.
7 . . .liJt6
7 ... ltJc6 8 0-0 ltJge7 9 ltJbc3 0-0 1 0 ..i.g5
h6 1 1 i..h4 d6 1 2 f4! was slightly better for
White in Amonatov-Nijboer, Elista Olym­
piad 1 998 .
8 0-0 0-0 9 lDbcJ lDc6 1 0 �g5 h6 1 1
�h4
1 1 . . .'ifc7
Keeping the h2-b8 diagonal open and re­
taining options over the d-pawn. The con­
servative 1 1 ...d6 is also playable, though.
1 2 l:!.c1 lDh5 1 3 f4 f5
Grabbing the b-pawn is virrually suicidal:
1 3 ... 'ilfb6+ ?! 1 4 i..£ 2 'ilfxb2 1 5 i..c 5! d6
(1 5 ....l:te8 16 .:lc2 traps the queen) 1 6 ..i.xd6
..i.xc3 1 7 ltJxc3 .l:td8 18 e5 (Ftacnik) and,
besides having problems with his queen,
Black has also managed to give up all of the
dark squares.
14 'iii>h 1 lDd8?
This knight manoeuvre to the kingside is
just far too ambitious and allows White a
free rein on the queenside and in the centre.
14 ... fxe4 1 5 ..i.xe4 ltJxf4 16 ..i.g3 g5 1 7 c5!
also leaves Black in a bind so Black should
prepare to fianchetto his light-squared
bishop with 14 ... b6!.
117
Sicilian Kan
1 5 c5! liJf7
Black is already in some trouble. A prob­
lem with the knight being on the back rank
can be seen in the variation 1 5 ... 'ir'xc5? 1 6
l'Lld5 'ir'a5 1 7 l'Lle7+ and the bishop i s lost.
1 6 exf5 gxf5
16 ... exf5 17 l'Lld5 is simply horrible for
Black.
1 7 i.xf5! i.f6
By not accepting the bishop, Black ad­
mits he is already losing, but 1 7 ... exf5 18
l'Lld5 'ir'a5 1 9 l'Llec3! leaves the h5-knight
with nowhere to go.
1 8 liJd4 i.xd4
The lines 18 ...exf5 1 9 'ir'xh5 �xd4 20
'ir'g6+ Wh8 21 l'Lld5 'ir'c6 22 l'Llf6 and
18.. .�xh4 1 9 'ir'xh5 exf5 20 'ir'g6+ Wh8 21
l'Lld5 'ir'd8 22 l'Llxf5 l:tg8 23 'ir'xf7 are both
easily winning for White.
1 9 'i'xh5
1 18
1 9 . . . liJh8
Or 1 9 ... exf5 20 'ir'g6+ Wh8 21 l'Lld5 'ir'c6
22 l'Llf6.
20 i.d3 i.g7 2 1 i.e7 l:!.f7 22 'i'h4 d5
23 cxd6 'i'b6 24 f5 'i'xb2 25 f6 1 -0
Game 45
Jamieson-Adamski
Nice O(ympiad 1 974
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6
5 i.d3 g6 6 0-0
Another possibility is 6 l'Llc3 .ig7 7 .ie3
l'Lle7 8 'ir'd2 d5 9 exd5 l'Llxd5 and now:
a) 1 0 .ig5!? 'ir'd6 1 1 l'Llde2 h6 12 .ih4
l'Llc6 (12... l'Llxc3 13 l'Llxc3 'ir'b4 14 l'Lle4
'ir'xd2+ 1 5 Wxd2 looks better for White) 1 3
.ig3 'ir'd8 14 l'Llxd5!? 'ir'xd5 1 5 l'Llc3 'ir'd4
(1 5 ... 'ir'xg2 1 6 0-0-0 looks dangerous for
Black) 16 0-0 0-0 1 7 .if4 Wh7 1 8 .ie3
(Kavalek-F.Olafsson, Buenos Aires 1 980)
and now I don't think Black is worse after
1 8 ... 'ir'b4.
b) 1 0 l'Llxd5 'ir'xd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 .ie2
'ir'd6 1 3 .:.ad1 'ir'c7 14 .ih6 l'Lld7 1 5 .ixg7
Wxg7 16 c4 is perhaps a shade better for
White, Leko-Vyzmanavin, Leon 1 993.
6 . . . i.g7
7 i.e3
7 c3 is rather tepid: 7 ... l'Llc6 8 l'Llxc6 bxc6
9 l'Lla3 l'Lle7 1 0 .if4 d5 1 1 'ir'd2 0-0 1 2 .:.ad1
e5 was equal in Tomczak-Sax, Germany
1 992.
 5 i.. d3: Fifth Mo v e A lt e rn a tives for Bla ck
7 lLlc6
. . .
Or:
a) 7 . ..lDe7 8 c4 l2Jbc6 9 l2Jxc6! is good for
White: 9 ... lDxc6 1 0 lDc3 0-0 1 1 'W'd2 'W'c7
12 �e2! 12 ... l2JeS 13 cS! and Black has
problems developing his queenside, Zon­
takh-Peev, Lazarevac 1 999, while 9 ... bxc6?!
10 cS! �xb2 1 1 lDd2! gives White tremen­
dous play, Topalov-J .Polgar, Las Palmas
1 994.
b) Also important is 7 ... d6!? and now:
b 1) 8 c4 l2Jf6 9 l2Jc3 0-0 would reach
lines similar to the one studied in Game 6.
Indeed, after 10 .:.c1 l2Jbd7 1 1 f3 'W'c7 1 2
'iVd2 b 6 1 3 .:.fd1 �b7 1 4 �fl .:.ac8 1 S 'ii'£2
we have a direct transposition.
b2) 8 'W'd2!? l2Jc6 9 �e2 lDf6 1 0 l2Jc3 0-0
1 1 .:.ad 1 lDe8 12 f4 looks better for White,
Schebler-Den Boer, Antwerp 2000.
8 c3
A more ambitious move order is 8 l2Jxc6
bxc6 9 l2Jd2!?
and now:
a) 9 ... �xb2? 10 l2Jc4! �xa1 1 1 'ii'x a1 f6
1 2 lDd6+ is horrible for Black.
b) 9 ... l2Je7 10 c3 .:.b8! (10... dS?! 1 1 �cS
reaches the main game) 1 1 'ii'c 2 0-0 1 2
.:.ad1 d6 1 3 f4 'W'c7 1 4 'iti>h1 c S ! 1 S l2J f3
�b7 looked okay for Black i n Malakhov­
Landa, Elista 1 997.
c) 9 ... dS with a further split:
cl) 10 c3 l2Jf6! 1 1 i.cS lDd7 12 i.a3
i.f8! 1 3 �xf8 �xf8 14 b4 aS 1 S l2Jb3 axb4
16 cxb4 'iti>g7 and Black had equalised in
Liberzon-Torre, Amsterdam 1 977.
c2) 10 �cS!? i.xb2!? (1 0 ... l2Je7 1 1 c3!
reaches the main game) 1 1 c4 l2Je7 (or
1 1 ...�xa1 1 2 'W'xa1 f6 1 3 exdS cxdS 14 cxdS
exdS 1 S .:.e1 + 'iti>f7 1 6 l2Jf3 [Sokolov] and I
would prefer to be White, despite the mate­
rial deficit) 12 exdS cxdS 1 3 .:.b1 �f6 1 4
lDe4! �eS ( 1 4. . .dxe4 loses to 1 S �xe4 .id7
16 iff3) 1 S cxdS ltJxdS 16 �c4 and Black's
king will never be safe. The game
A.Sokolov-Bologan, Germany 1 998 con­
cluded 16...�xh2+ 17 'iii>xh2 'W'h4+ 18 'iti>g1
'ii'xe4 19 �d3 'it' f4 20 'W'b3 �d7 21 'ii'b7
.:.c8 22 .:.fcl 'iVd2 23 .ixa6 'ii'xa2 24 �bS
.:.xeS 2S 'ii'x d7+ and Black resigned.
8 lLlge7 9 lL'ld2 d5?!
. . .
This is too early and allows White to
reach a favourable set-up.
9 ... 0-0 is stronger: 10 lDxc6 (10 f4 looks
logical) 1 0...l2Jxc6 1 1 l2Jc4!? dS 12 exdS exdS
and now:
a) 13 l2Jd2?! Oame) d4 14 cxd4 l2Jxd4 1 S
l2Jb3 l2Jxb3 1 6 'W'xb3 i.e6 with an edge to
Black, Pedzich-Bologan, Mamaia 1 9 9 1 .
b) 1 3 l2Jb6! i s critical, when Black must
play either 13 ... l:r.b8 or head for the compli-
cations of 13 ... d4!? 14 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 S lDxa8
�a7 16 �e4 'W'e7.
1 0 lLlxc6 bxc6
White also keeps the advantage after
1 O... l2Jxc6 1 1 exdS 'ii'x dS 1 2 l2Jc4!.
1 1 i..c 5!
1 19
Sic ilian Ka n
As we have seen already, this bishop is
very well placed on this square and it's ex­
tremely difficult for Black to oppose it. This
in itself is enough to give White a substan­
tial advantage.
1 1 . . 0-0 1 2 f4 f6 1 3 'iie2 .l:!.f7 1 4lt::lf3
. b) 9 lbc3 and now:
aS 1 5 c4 'iic 7 16 lt::ld4 .i.f8 1 7 cxd5
exd5 18 .l:!.ac 1 dxe4?
A mistake, although Black was already in
big trouble.
1 9 .i.c4 f5 20 .i.xf7 + 'it>xf7 21 'ifc4 +
'it>g7 22 lt::l b 5! 'iid 7 23 .i.d4 + �h6 24
.l:!.c3 g5 25 'iff7 lt::lg6 26 l:.h3 + lt::l h4 27
'iif6 + 1 -0
Game 46
J. Polgar-Miezis
Ta/linn 200 1
1 e4 c5 2lt::lf 3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt::lxd4 a6
5 .i.d3lt::lc6 6 lt::lxc6 dxc6
6... bxc6 has never been very popular,
having suffered a high-proft.le loss at the
hands of Bobby Fischer. That said, it's
probably not quite as bad as its reputation. 7
0-0 dS 8 c4! lDf6
and now:
a) 9 cxdS cxdS 1 0 exdS lDxdS (10 ... exdS
1 1 lbc3 .ie7 transposes to note 'b 1 ') 1 1
.ie4 l:.a7 with another split:
a1) 12 1LxdS ifxdS 1 3 ifxdS exdS 1 4
.ie3 l:.b7 1 S b 3 .ib4 1 6 l:.d1 .ie6 was a
level ending, Ott-Melcher, Germany 1 994.
1 20
a2) 1 2 ifd4 l:!.d7?! 1 3 l2Jc3 lbxc3 1 4
ifxc3 left Black i n some trouble i n Be­
liavsky-Kurajica, Sarajevo 1 982, but Be­
liavsky's suggested improvement of 12 ... l:!.c7
13 l:!.d 1 l:!.d7! is a tough nut to crack.
b1) 9 ... .ie7 10 cxdS cxdS 1 1 exdS exdS
12 ifa4+ .id7 (1 2 ... ifd7 13 Ite1 ! ifxa4 14
lbxa4 1J..e6 1 S 1J..e 3 0-0 1 6 .icS was a very
unpleasant endgame for Black in Fischer­
Petrosian, Buenos Aires [7th match game]
1971) 1 3 ifd4 .ic6 14 .if4 0-0 1 S l:!.ad1
ifaS 16 .ieS with an edge to White, Suta­
Nevednichaya, correspondence 1 983.
b2) 9 ... d4!? isn't so bad: 10 lba4 cS 1 1 eS
lDd7 12 1J..e4 Ita7 13 f4 fS!? 14 exf6 lDxf6
1 S .ic6+ 1J.. d7 16 "ii' e 2 Wf7 1 7 .ixd7 ifxd7
18 b3 1J..d6 1 9 lbb2 l:!.e8 20 lDd3 'iic7 21
.id2 aS 22 l:.ae1 was only a bit better for
White, Anka-Zvara, Pardubice 1 999.
7 lt::ld 2
A good route for the knight, which plans
to make c4 its home. From there it eyes the
vulnerable spots of b6, d6 and eS.
7 0-0 is likely to transpose into the main
lines, for example: 7 ... eS 8 lbd2 'iic7 (or
8 ... lDf6 9 lbc4 'iic 7 and we have transposed
to the main game) 9 a4 (the immediate 9
lbc4 can be met by 9 ... bS) 9 ... lDf6 and now:
a) 1 0 lbc4 transposes to the main game.
b) 10 aS!?, clamping down on the queen­
side, looks interesting:
b1) 1 0 ... 1J.. b4 1 1 lbc4 i.e6 (1 1 ....ig4!?)
1 2 iff3 .ixc4 13 .ixc4 0-0 14 .igS lDe8 1 S
.:!.fd 1 lbd6 ( 1 S. . ..ixaS? 1 6 ifa3! .ib6 1 7
.ie7) 16 .ib3 .icS 1 7 l:!.d3 and White had
an edge, Stefansson-Ahmed, Tanta 2001 .
b2) 1 0 ... 1J..e6 1 1 iie2 .icS 1 2 .ic4 'iie7
13 lbb3 .ia7 14 l:!.a4 0-0 and Black has
equalised, Castro Rojas-Jimenez Zerquera,
Cienfuegos 1 976.
7 . . . e5 8lt::lc4
8 "ii' h S is the subject of our next game.
8 . . . lt::lf6
The most popular response. Other tries
include:
 5 i.. d 3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck
a) 8 ... i.e6 9 i.d2!? i.xc4 10 ..i.xc4 'ii'd4
1 1 'ii'e2 b5 12 ..i.b3 tLlf6 1 3 0-0-0 'ii'xe4 1 4
.l:the1 'ii'xe2 1 5 .l:txe2 e 4 16 g4! and White is
better, Vallejo Pons-Miezis, European Team
Ch., Leon 200 1 .
b) 8. . .tLle7 9 ..i.e3 and now:
b 1) 9 .....i.e6 1 0 'ii'h 5 tbg6 1 1 0-0-0 (1 1
tbxe5?? 'ii'a 5+ is a trick to beware ol)
1 1 ...'ii'c 7 1 2 ..i.b6 'ii'b 8 1 3 g3 and White's
pieces occupy active posts, Plaskett-Miles,
Bergsjo 1981 .
b2) 9 ...tbg6 1 0 tLlb6 .l:tb8 1 1 tbxc8 .l:txc8
12 'ii'g4 ..i.d6 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 ..i.c4 and the
bishop pair give White a small advantage
typical for this variation, Tirnman-Miles,
Bugojno 1 978.
9 0-0
9 tbxe5?? loses to 9 ...'ii'a5+.
9 .'i'c7
. .
9 .....i.g4 10 'ii'e 1 ! tLld7 1 1 f4 is promising
for White, for example 1 1 .. ...i.e6 1 2 'it>h1 f6
1 3 i.e3 'ii'c 7 1 4 a4 0-0-0 1 5 f5 ..i.xc4 1 6
..i.xc4 i.c5 1 7 i.d2 ..tb8 1 8 b 4 ..i.d4 1 9 .l:t b 1
tLlb6 20 ..tb3 tbc8 21 ..te6 .l:td6 22 c3 ..i.a7
23 c4 and White is launching forward on
the queenside, Ye Jiangchuan-Miles, Gron­
ingen 1 997.
10 a4!?
An important moment. White has a few
ways to try for an advantage:
a) 10 ..i.e3 ..te6! 1 1 ..i.b6 'ii'b 8 12 a4 tLld7!
13 ..i.e3 b5 14 axb5 cxb5 1 5 tLla5 ..i.c5 16
'ii'e2 0-0 equalised comfortably for Black in
Cioara-Miezis, Castellaneta 1 999.
b) 10 f4 is an ambitious attempt to open
the position before Black is able to organise
his development. Play continues 1 0 ... tLlg4!
1 1 'it>h 1 and here Black has two alternatives:
b1) 1 1 ...b5 12 tbxe5 tbxe5 1 3 fxe5 'ii'x e5
14 a4 .i.e7 1 5 ..i.f4 'ii'xb2! (1 5 ... 'ii'c 5?! 16
'ii'e 2 b4 17 e5 left White with an advantage
on both sides, Rowson-Solak, Halle 1 995)
16 axb5 cxb5 17 e5 0-0 1 8 ..i.e4 i.e6! 1 9
..i.xa8 l:txa8 2 0 'ii' f3 .l:tc8 2 1 .l:txa6 'ii'xc2 22
i.g5 ..i.b4 23 .l:ta8 ..i.f8 and White's small
material plus will be very difficult to realise,
Forster-Solak, Halon 1 995.
b2) 1 1 ...i.c5 1 2 'ii' f3 ..i.e6 13 'ii'g3 h5 14
f5 ..i.xc4 1 5 i.xc4 0-0-0 16 i.e2 tLlf6 17
..i.f3 'ii'e 7 18 ..i.g5 h4 1 9 'ii'h 3 ..i.b6 was
unclear in Delchev-Cappon, Bethune 1 998.
c) 10 ..i.d2!? (this looks quite promising)
and now:
cl) 10 .....i.g4 1 1 'ii'e 1 b5 1 2 tbe3 i.c5 1 3
tLlxg4 tbxg4 1 4 'ii'e2 tLlf6 1 5 b 4 i.b6 1 6 c4
was pleasant for White in Leko-Khalifman,
Budapest (2nd match game) 2000.
c2) 1 0 ... b5!? 1 1 ..i.a5 (1 1 tLle3?! i.c5 is
nothing for White) 1 1 ...'ii'b 8 12 lDb6 .l:ta7
(12...i.g4 1 3 'ii'e 1 l:ta7 14 'ii'e 3 :b7 15 c4!
looks promising for White) 1 3 ltJxc8 (13 c4?
..i.g4 14 'ii'c 2 ..i.c5 1 5 cxb5 ..i.xb6 16 'ii'xc6+
liJd7 lost a piece for insufficient compensa­
tion in Santo Roman-Miezis, French League
1 999) 1 3. .. 'ii'x c8 14 a4
with a further split:
12 1
Sic ilian Kan
c21) 1 4...l:td7 1 S li'e2 li'b8 (or 1S ... i.d6
16 c4 b4 17 cS!) 16 c4 (16 b4, intending c2-
c4 without allowing ... bS-bS, is also interest­
ing) 16 ... b4 17 cS �xeS 18 .l:.acl �b6 1 9
�xb4 ..ix£2+ 20 .l:.x£2 li'xb4 21 .l:.xc6 1;e7
(Reefat-Miezis, Dhaka 2001) and now 22
li'f3! l:.hd8 23 l:.xf6 gxf6 24 li'xf6+ looks
very good for White.
c22) 1 4 ... li'b8 1 S axbS (again I like 1 S
b4!?) 1 S . . .axbS 16 �c3 �cS 1 7 b4 .l:.xa 1 1 8
li'xa1 �d6 and White i s a tiny bit better,
Handke-Miezis, Andorra 2001 .
1 0 . . . ..ic5
1 0... �e6!, planning to answer 1 1 �gS
with 1 1 ...tt'ld7, looks stronger to me. White
protects e4 with 1 1 'ti'f3 and now:
a) 1 1 ...�xc4 1 2 �xc4 �cS 1 3 aS 0-0 1 4
c 3 .l:.fd8 1 S �gS 'ii'e 7 16 b 4 �a7 1 7 .l:.ad1
gives White that traditional two bishops
edge, Wahls-Miezis, Bern 1 99S.
b) 1 1 ...�cS! 1 2 li'g3 tt'ld7 13 aS (13
li'xg7 is critical but is also hardly likely to
appeal to many players) 1 3 ... f6 14 1;h1 gS
1 S i.e3 hS 16 ..ixcS tt'lxcS and Black was
not worse in Short-Capelan, Solingen 1 986.
10 ...�g4 1 1 li'ct �cS 12 1;h1 bS 1 3
tt'le3 �d7 1 4 f4! exf4 1 S tt'lfS gS? 16 li'c3
�e7 17 tt'lxe7 1;xe7 18 li'cS+ li'd6 1 9
li'xgS was winning for White i n Pietrusiak­
Filipowicz, Piotrkow Trybunalski 1 970.
1 1 ..ig5!
This move is now annoying for Black as
if the knight retreats to d7, it blocks the c8-
1 22
bishop. In the game Miezis allows his pawns
to be doubled but his king never finds a safe
haven afterwards.
1 1 . . . i.e6
1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 li'e1 tt'ld7 allows the bishop
out, but after 1 3 1;h 1 f6 14 �d2 0-0 1 S b4!
�d4 16 c3 �a7 17 aS .l:.ae8 18 f4! White
built up a strong initiative in Salrn-Sande,
correspondence 1 976.
1 2 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 3 'ii'f 3 <i;e7 14 c3 h5 1 5
ttJe3 .l:tagS 1 6 h3 .l:tg5 1 7 .l:tfd 1 l:!.hgS 1 8
..if1 h4 1 9 b4 ..ia7 20 <i;h 1 'ii'c S 2 1 l:!.d2
.!:!.dB 22 l:!.xdS 'ii'x dS 23 .l:ld 1 'ii'g B?
23 ...li'c8 would have kept Black in the
game. Now White can win.
24 tiJd5 + ! cxd5 25 exd5 'ii'c S
Or 2S ... i.c8 26 d6+ 1;d7 27 li'xf6 li'd8
28 li'xf7+ 1;c6 29 d7 �xd7 30 li'c4+ 1;b6
31 aS mate.
26 dxe6 fxe6 27 'ii'e4 f5 28 'ii'x h4 'ii'gS
29 b5 axb5 30 ..ixb5 <i;t6 31 .l:td7 e4 32
l:!.xb7 ..ic5 33 l:!.c7 .itS 34 f4! exf3 35
'ii'd4 + <i;g6 36 ..ieB + 1 -0
Game 47
Nunn-Khurtsidze
World Team Ch., Lucerne 1997
1 e4 c5 2 ttJt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6
5 ..id3 ttJc6 6 ttJxc6 dxc6 7 ttJd2 e5 8
'ii'h 5 ..id6 9 ttJc4 ttJt6
Once again Black decides that giving up
the bishop pair is the safest course. The
 5 i.. d3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck
main alternative runs 9 ...JI..c 7 10 il..g 5 li:'lf6
1 1 'ii'e2 h6 12 il..h4 'ii'e7 1 3 0-0-0 i.e6 14 f4
i.xc4 1 5 il..xc4 b5 16 il.. b 3.
This position has scored well for White,
for example:
a) 16 ... l:.d8 17 f5 0-0 18 g4 l:.d6 19 l:.xd6
il..xd6 20 g5 hxg5 21 il..xg5 and White will
get a very strong attack, Hoexter-Kruchem,
correspondence 1 995.
b) 1 6 ...0-0 17 il..x f6! 'ii'x f6 18 l:.d7 il..d8
(or 18 ...'ii'xf4+ 1 9 �b1 il..b6 20 l:. fl 'ii'xh2
21 'ii'g4 �h8 22 l:td3! f5 23 exf5 e4 24 l:td7
'ii'e 5 25 f6! and White won, Perunovic­
Solak, Lazarevac 1 999) 1 9 l:tfl exf4 20 g3
'ii'g6 21 e5 and Black is in some trouble,
Rawley-Lifson, correspondence 1 985.
1 0 lt:lxd6 + ffxd6 1 1 ffe2 i..e6 1 2 0-0
0-0
1 3 b3!
White makes good use of the bishop,
which may come out to either b2 or, after
a2-a4, the a3-square.
1 3 . . . b5 14 a4 .l:!.fd8 1 5 i.. g 5?!
Now that a rook has appeared on d8,
White feels it's worthwhile pinning the
knight. However, this allows Black a cute
equalising trick.
1 5 l:td 1 ! ? (Ribli) keeps an edge. Notice
that 1 5 ...il..g4?! 16 f3 'ii'd4+? doesn't work
on account of 1 7 il..e 3!.
1 5 . . . i..x b3! 1 6 axb5 cxb5 1 7 i.. xf6 gxf6
1 8 .l:!.ad 1 i..e6 1 9 i..x b5 ffxd 1 ! 20 lbd 1
.l:!.xd 1 + 21 fr'xd 1 axb5
Nominally White is material ahead, but
it's very easy for Black to erect an impreg­
nable fortress.
22 g4 h6 23 'it>g2 'it>g7 24 �g3 lla4 25
f3 .l:!.a8 26 'ilr'd2 l:!.e8 27 h4 i..c4 28 'ilr'd7
.l:!.e6 29 'it>f2 lla6 30 ffe7 .l:[e6 31 'ilr'd8
i..a2 32 'iti>e3 i..c4 33 'it>d2 i.. a 2 34 'it>c3
i..c4 35 'ilr'd2 i..a 2 36 'iti>b4 i..c4 37 fr'f2
I:!.a6 38 fr'g3 l:!.e6 39 'it>c5 �g6 40 'ilr'g2
'it>g7 41 'ilr'd2 'iti>g6 42 'ilr'g2 'iti>g7 43 g5
fxg5 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 ffxg5 + �f8 46
'ilr'g2 .l:!.g6 47 fr'h2 .l:!.e6 48 fr'h8 + 'iti>e7
49 'ilr'g8 .l:!.g6 50 fr'b8 .l:!.e6 51 fr'h8 i..f 1
52 fr'h1 % - %
Game 48
Sulskis-Eingorn
Koszalin 1 999
1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::lxd4 a6
1 23
Sicilian Kan

5 ..td3 'i'b6 lt:Jc3, followed by i.e3, gives White a huge

Hoping to kick White's knight from the
centre, but White doesn't have to play ball.
6 c3!
lead in development) 8 i.e3 'fic7 9 c4 li:Jf6
1 0 lt:Jc3 i.e7 1 1 l:.cl lt:Je5 1 2 i.e2 0-0 1 3 b3
l:te8 14 f4 lt:Jg6 1 5 �h1 b6 1 6 f5 lt:Je5 1 7
'fie1 �h8 1 8 'fig3 was better for White in
Adams-Bistric, Neum 2002.
c) 7 lt:Jxc6 'fixc6 8 0-0 d6 9 c4 li:Jf6 10
'fie2 i.e7 11 lt:Jc3 lt:Jd7 1 2 f4 0-0 1 3 i.e3 b6
14 l:.f3 i.b7 1 5 l:.h3 with a strong kingside
attack, Anand-J .Polgar, Leon 2000.

I believe this simple move is the strong­

est reply. Black must now either add extra
pressure to d4 or huddle back into a
Hedgehog strucrure.
6 li:Jb3 'fic7 7 0-0 li:Jf6 8 c4 (for 8 lt:Jc3
b5, see Chapter 7 under the move order 5
lt:Jc3 b5 6 i.d3 'fib6 7 lt:Jb3 'fic7 8 0-0 li:Jf6) 7 0-0 tt'lf6 8 'i'e2 d6
8 ... d6 9 lt:Jc3 leads to similar play to that in We have reached a main line position ex­
Games 37-38 and can often transpose. The cept that White has the extra move c2-c3.
two differences are that Black's queen is Narurally White can now transpose into
already committed to c7 but his bishop has positions dealt with in Chapter 1 by playing
not yet moved to e7. Black may use the 9 c4, but why not try to make use of the
latter difference in some variations, for ex­ extra tempo?
ample, 9 ... lt:Jbd7 10 f4 (10 a4!?) 1 0 ... g6!? 1 1 9 f4! ? tt'lbd7 1 0 tt'ld2
'fie2 i.g7 1 2 i.d2 0-0 1 3 l:.ael b6 1 4 �h1
i.b7 and Black had reached a perfect de­
fensive set-up in Gullaksen-Zagorskis, Co­
penhagen 1 998.
6. . . 'i'c7
Alternatively:
a) 6 ... i.c5?! 7 li:Jd2! (this could also arise
from 5 ... i.c5 6 c3 'fib6?!) 7 ... i.xd4 8 cxd4
'fixd4 9 lt:Jc4 and, with i.e3 corning, Black
is already in serious trouble.
b) 6 ...lt:Jc6 and now:
b1) 7 i.e3!? i.c5 (7 ... 'fixb2?? 8 li:Jb3
traps the queen) 8 li:Jd2 transposes to Game
41. With the knight protected on d4, White
b2) 7 0-0 d6 (7... lt:Jxd4 8 cxd4 'fixd4 9 does not have to worry about a pin with

1 24
 5 i. d 3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck
... 'ii'b 6. Consequently, White need not hurry
to play c;ith 1 .
1 o . . . e5!?
Or:
a) 1 0...g6 1 1 f5 e5 12 tLle6! gave White
the advantage in Sulypa-Brustkern, Berlin
1 998.
b) 10 ... �e7 1 1 tiJ2f3 (preparing e4-e5)
1 1 ...tLlc5 1 2 i.c2 e5 1 3 tLlf5 0-0 14 fxe5
dxe5 15 tLl3h4 �d8 1 6 'ii' f3 c;ith8 1 7 i.e3
g6 18 tLlh6 �e6 19 :ad 1 �e7 20 b4 tLlcd7
21 �g5 l:tae8 22 i.b3 'ii'b 6+ 23 c;ith1 �xb3
24 axb3 and White has strong pressure on
the kingside, Grabarczyk-J aracz, Polanica
Zdroj 1 999.
1 1 fxe5 dxe5 1 2 lDf5 lbc5 1 3 i.c2 i.e6
1 4 lbb3 lbcd7 1 5 ..tg5 h6 16 i.h4 g6
1 7 lbe3 ..tg7 1 8 lbd2! 0-0 1 9 i.b3
White's control over the d5-square, cou­
pled with the eventual control on the d-ftle,
promises him a useful advantage to work
with.
1 9 . . .'ii'c6 20 .l:l.ad 1 l:.ae8 2 1 'ii'f 3 b5 22
h3 'ii'b 7 23 i.xe6 l:.xe6 24 lbb3 'ii'a 7 25
'iitth 1 a5 26 lbd5 a4 27 i.f2 �b7 28
lbc5 lbxc5 29 i.xc5 l:.c8 30 'ii'e 3 lDh5
31 'iitth 2 lbf4 32 g3 lbxd5 33 l:.xd5 h5
34 'ii'd 3 'ii'c6 35 i.b4 .l:!.b8 36 'iittg 2
see following diagram
White is in total control over the posi­
tion, but Black's next move does make
things very easy for him.
36. . . i.f6?? 37 l:.d6! l:.xd6 38 i.xd6 1 -0
Game 49
Wydrowski-Panter
Comspondence 1 996
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 a6
5 i.d3 lbe7 6 0-0 lbbc6
The main alternative is 6 ... ttJec6 and here
I like the simple 7 c3, for example:
a) 7 ... d5 8 exd5 'ii'x d5 9 i.e3 �e7 1 0
tLld2 tLlxd4 1 1 �xd4 0-0 1 2 'ii'c 2 with a
pleasant position for White, Adams­
Portisch, Yerevan Olympiad 1 996.
b) 7...�e7 8 �e3 b5 9 tLld2 i.b7 10 f4
0-0 1 1 'ii'h 5! (highlighting a flaw of 5 ...tLle7
- the white queen can often rest unmolested
on this square) 1 1 ...tLlxd4 12 cxd4 g6 1 3
'ii'h 3 and White has the advantage, Lutz­
Nijboer, Venlo 2000.
Notice that 6 ... g6 7 c4 �g7 8 �e3 trans­
poses to the note to Black's 7th move in
Game 45.
7 lbb3
It makes sense for White to avoid an ex­
change of knights as now Black will have to
expend another tempo on his e7-knight in
order to prepare kingside castling.
7 c3 tLle5?! 8 f4 tLlxd3 9 'ii'xd3 'ii'c7 1 0
�e3 tLlc6 1 1 c 4 led to a typical white edge
in the game ] .Polgar-Bischoff, Ohrid 2001 ,
but I prefer Ribli's suggestion of 7 ...d5!.
7 . . . lbg6
1 25
Sicilian Kan
7 ...g6 8 c4 .1Lg7 9 tLlc3 transposes to
Games 42 and 43. This may well be Black's
best choice here.
8 c4
Erecting the Maroczy Bind, although
there is also nothing wrong with abstaining
from this to gain an extra tempo for attack:
8 f4 i.e7 9 tLlc3 bS 10 ..i.e3 iJ.. b7 1 1 'ilfhS!
gave White the advantage in Arakharnia
Grant-Portisch, London 1 996.
B . . . d6 9 i.e3 i.e7 10 lL\c3 b6 1 1 .rf.c 1
0-0 1 2 f4 lteB
1 3 llf3!
With Black's knight on g6 rather than f6,
this plan of attack docs suggest itself.
1 3 . . . i.d7 1 4 .l:.h3 lLib4 1 5 i.b1 e5 16 f5
lLif4 1 7 .rf.g3 b5 1 8 c5! dxc 5 1 9 lL\xc5
.tea 20 -.g4
Already there arc very serious threats! I
must admit that this game is certainly not a
126
good advertisement for 5 ...tLlc7.
20 . . .i.fB 21 a3 lL\c6 22 .rf.d 1 -.as 23
lt'ld5 lt:'lxd5 24 exd5 lt'lbB
25 lt'le6! ! 1 -0
After 25 .. .fxe6 26 f6! Black is getting
mated, for example 26 ...tLld7 27 ..i.xh7+
'it>xh7 28 'ilfhS+ 'it>g8 29 f7, or 26 ... 'il'c7 27
fxg7 ..i.xg7 28 'ilfhS 'ilff7 29 ..i.xh7+ 'it>f8 30
iJ..c S+ .l:tc7 31 .!::. fl .
Game 50
Sax-Fogarasi
Hungarian League 1 997
1 e4 c5 2 lLif3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL\xd4 a6
5 ..td3 d5!?
Somehow this doesn't look right. After
all, Black has not yet developed a piece and
here he is, offering to open up the position.
However, appearances are a bit deceptive;
 5 i. d 3 : Fifth Mo ve A lt e rn a tives for Bla ck

it's not quite as bad as it looks! 20 .t£3 (Yakovich) would have given White
6 exd5 'i'xd5 a clear advantage. Note that this game came
Play somewhat resembles a major line in from the French move order.
the French Tarrasch (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �d2 1 0 . . . lt'lbd7 1 1 lt'lg3! ? lt'le5 1 2 i.c2 i.d7
c5 4 exd5 'il'xd5 5 �g£3 cxd4 6 .tc4 'il'd6 7
0-0 �f6 8 �b3 lLlc6 9 �bxd4 �xd4 1 0
lLlxd4). In that line Black is behind i n de­
velopment but his solid kingside pawn
structure gives him a reasonable theoretical
standing.
7 0-0 lt'lf6 8 lt'lc3 'i'd8 9 lt'le4!
Cleverly transposing into another line of
the French Tarrasch (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lLld2
c5 4 �g£3 cxd4 5 lLlxd4 a6 6 .id3 dxe4 7
lLlxe4 �f6 8 0-0), which is known to be
good for White.
White has many other alternatives that
would give a small plus, for example 9 .tf4 1 3 ii'e2
.te7 1 0 �£3! �c6 1 1 'il'e2 0-0 1 2 �e5!, as More aggressive is 13 .tg5! 0-0 (13. .. h6!?)
in Pupo-Armas, Cuba 1 998. 14 1t'e2 �c6 1 5 �ad1 'it'c7 1 6 �fe 1 ! (Sax)
9 . . . i.e7 when White has a good attacking set-up.
9 ... �bd7 10 c3 (or 10 b3!?) 10 ....te7 is 1 3 . . .lt'lc6 14 .:.d 1 'i'c7 1 5 i.g5 0-0 1 6
another way of reaching the text. lt'lh5 lt'lxh5 1 7 ifxh5 g6 1 8 ifh6 .i.xg5
1 0 c3 1 9 Wxg5 .l:.ad8 20 h4
More dynamic is 10 b3!? �bd7?! This allows Black to consolidate. Fogarasi
(10...�xe4 1 1 .ixe4 �d7 is stronger) 1 1 suggests 20 �£3! 'it>g7 and only then 21 h4.
.tb2 �xe4 1 2 �xe6! fxe6 1 3 .ixg7 .tf6 1 4 20 . . .'i'e5! 21 lt'lf3 'i'xg5 22 lt'lxg5 lt'le7
.txh8 .txh8 1 5 'il'h5+ �f8 1 6 .txe4 .txa1 23 .l:.d2 i.c6 24 �ad 1 �xd2 25 .:.xd2
1 7 l:ha1 lLlf6 (Yakovich-Tolnai, Kecskemet .i.d5 26 lt'le4 'it>g7 27 lt'ld6 b5 28 a4
1 991) and now 1 8 'il'e5 'il'e7 1 9 �d1 �g8 Y:z - Y:z

127
Sicilian Kan

Summary
S ... g6 is tricky and may catch the unsuspecting white player off his guard. There's a subtle
difference here to the ... g6 lines in Chapter 1 and White must be careful not to allow Black
to play a liberating ... d7-d5 advance under favourable circumstances. That said, 10 ..tgS in
the main line (Game 42) seems to promise White some advantage, while 7 lLle2 (Game 44)
also looks promising for the first player.
If you are the type of player quite happy to be very slightly worse in a quiet position and
to draw many games as Black, then S ... ltJc6 (Games 46-47) is an ideal weapon. Luckily there
are not too many of these players around, as these lines aren't the most exciting!

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 i.d3 g6

S ... lLlc6 6 lLlxc6 dxc6 7 lLld2 eS
8 'iih S - Game 47; 8 ltJc4 (D)- Game 46
S ... 'iib6 - Game 48
S ... lLle7 (D) - Game 49
S ... dS - Game 50
6 c4
6 0-0 - Game 45
6 . . . i.g7 7 lLlb3
7 ltJe2 Game 44
-

7 . . .lbe 7 8 lLlc3 0-0 9 0-0 lLlbc6 (D) 1 0 .ie2 - Game 43

1 0 ..tgS - Game 42

8 lbc4 5. . . lbe 7 9. . . lbbc6

1 28
 CHAPTER SIX I
5 ttJc3 'fiic 7

1 e 4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a 6 move. White bolsters the e-pawn and pre­
5 lt:'lc3 1kc7 pares to castle. The bishop on d3 is actively
Now we finally move on to 5 lt:Jc3, placed for an eventual kingside attack and
White's second most popular choice after 5 may be liberated by an eventual e4-e5.
i.d3. In this chapter we will study the re­
sponse 5 ...'il'c7. This is still Black's main
reply to 5 lt:Jc3, even though in the past
couple of years it's had some stiff competi­
tion from S ... bS (mainly because of the sud­
den discovery of 5 ... bS 6 i.d3 'il'b6 - see
Chapter 7).
The move 5 ... 'il'c7 immediately puts the
black queen on her normal 'Kan' square,
from where she controls the key eS-square
and eyes events down the c-ftle. The move
is also very flexible; Black commits himself
neither on the queenside nor with his d­
pawn. Given Black's reluctance to move the Classical development with 6 i.e2 is also
d-pawn so early, 5 ... 'ii'c7 is also virtually a an accepted choice amongst white players,
necessity so that Black can develop with especially those who play i.e2 systems
...lt:Jf6 (the immediate 5 ...lt:Jf6? would run against the Najdorf, Scheveningen and Tai­
into 6 eS!). manov. Acrually Black can transpose into
In this chapter we will consider all of the Taimanov (with 6 ... lt:Jc6) and the
White's main replies to 5 ... 'il'c7. Scheveningen (with 6 ... lt:Jf6 7 0-0 d6) but
1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 here we will concentrate on pure Kan posi­
5 lt:'lc3 1kc7 tions that are reached after 6 ... b5 (see Game
59). I should say a few words about mixing
see following diagram
... b7-b5 with an early ... 'il'c7. Sometimes this
6 �d3 can be an extremely risky strategy as Black
6 i.d3 is the most popular and logical can fall dangerously behind on develop-

1 29
Sicilian Ka n
ment. On the other hand, the ... b7-b5 lunge
can also be the best way forward as it forces
White to deal with early pressure against e4.
On this occasion (against 6 .ie2) it is fully
justified and is the main Line. However,
when White takes measures to support e4
(with 6 g3 and 6 i.d3 - see below) it is
more risky to play ...b7-b5.
White players who play g2-g3 systems
against other Sicilians can also play it against
the Kan. Now 6 ... .ib4 (or 6...tt'lf6 7 .ig2
.ib4) is probably the strongest move to play
if one wishes to keep a Kan flavour (see
Game 61). On the other hand, here 6 ... b5?!
is an extremely hazardous response (see
Game 60). One further point I should add
is that 6 ... tt'lc6, transposing to the g3 Tai­
manov, is a perfectly viable option.
Erecting a pawn front with 6 f4 is an­
other white strategy. As this is hardly a de­
veloping move, Black is justified in playing
6 ... b5 (see Game 62).
Before moving on I should just mention
a couple of less important moves for White,
but ones that are still commonly seen in
practice. With 6 a3?! White's idea is to pre­
vent an early ... .ib4 or ... b7-b5-b4. How­
ever, this is not really a move that will strike
fear into the Kan player, who will no doubt
be happy to use the extra tempo for devel­
opment. Either 6 ... tt'lf6 or 6 ... b5 should be
fine for Black, for example 6 ... b5 7 .id3
.ib7 8 0-0 tt'lf6 and the loss of a tempo
with a2-a3 means that White is in much less
of a position to exploit Black's set-up (com­
pare this with 6 .id3 b5).
Also not dangerous is 6 .ie3, trying to
play an 'English Attack' (.ie3, 'iid2, 0-0-0
etc.). This is not particularly effective
against the Kan: 6 ... .ib4! 7 'iid2 tt'lf6 and
now:
a) 8 f3 d5! (when compared with the
English attack against the Scheveningen, the
fact that Black can play ... d7-d5 in one go is
a big bonus) 9 exd5 tt'lxd5 1 0 tt'lde2 tt'lxe3
1 1 'iixe3 0-0 12 0-0-0 tt'lc6 and Black was
1 30
already looking in good shape, Bolzoni­
Chuchelov, Brussels 1 995.
b) 8 .id3 d5! (again this move) 9 exd5
tt'lxd5 10 tt'lde2 tt'lc6 1 1 0-0 tt'lxe3 12 'iixe3
i.e7 1 3 1:.ad1 0-0 14 'iih 3 h6 and White has
no real compensation for giving Black the
bishop pair, De Silva-Kotsur, Aden 2002.
6 . . . lDf6
Developing the king's knight is Black's
most reliable way forward. Given that
White has not 'wasted' a move on c2-c4, it
pays for Black not to fall too far behind in
development.
6 ... tt'lc6 is not your typical Kan move but
it's very playable and quite solid. Now 7
.ie3 would transpose directly into the Tai­
manov, but many white players prefer the
direct 7 tt'lxc6. Now either pawn capture is
playable: Game 58 focuses on 7 ... dxc6 while
in Game 57 we look at 7 ... bxc6 (7 ... l\hc6 8
0-0 b5 9 e5! looks good for White).
6 ... b5 is extremely risky. Game 56 is a
graphic illustration of what can happen if
Black is not careful.
7 0-0
The automatic move, but there are a
couple of interesting sidelines.
a) The move 7 'iie 2!? threatens e4-e5 and
Black normally avoids this with 7 ... d6.
However, this rules out the idea of a knight­
disturbing ... i.c5 for Black; the price White
pays for this is that the queen is committed
to e2. After 8 f4 I Like the idea of 8 ... g6!? 9

0-0 i.g7 for Black. The point is that a nor­
mal plan for White is 'ii'd 1 -e 1 -h4 but now
White would have to lose a vital tempo to
do this. Play may continue 1 0 'it>ht 0-0 and
now:
at) 1 1 lDB lDc6 (t t ...lDbd7!? also looks
reasonable) 12 'ii'f2 b5 1 3 'ir'h4 i.b7 14 f5
14... exf5 (King-Psakhis, Moscow 1 990) and
now King's variation of 1 5 exf5 lDe5!? 16
lDxe5 dxe5 1 7 i.g5 'ir'c6 1 8 'ir'h3 looks okay
for Black, who has useful pressure against
g2.
a2) 1 1 i.d2!? b6 (or 1 1 ...lDc6!?) 1 2 �ael
i.b7 13 lDf3 lDbd7 was reasonably com­
fortable for Black in T.Bauer-Farago, Hun­
gary 1 993. After 14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5 lDd5
16 lDxd5 i.xd5 17 i.f4 b5 it's difficult for
White to do anything without losing his e­
pawn.
b) 7 f4!? is another way to induce ... d7-d6,
with this method having the advantage of
not committing the queen. Now the obvi­
ous 7 ... d6 8 0-0 transposes to Game 55. I f
Black wants to avoid this h e can try the line
7 ... b5, answering the critical 8 e5 with 8 ... b4,
for example 9 lDe4 lDxe4 10 i.xe4 i.b7 1 1
'if'B lDc6 1 2 lDxc6 i.xc6 1 3 i.xc6 and
now:
b 1) 1 3. .. 'ir'xc6 1 4 'ir'xc6 dxc6 1 5 'it>e2
0-0-0 16 i.e3 gave White a slight structural
advantage in Shirov-Rublevsky, Polanica
Zdroj 1 998.
b2) 1 3. ..dxc6! 14 i.e3 i.e7 1 5 0-0-0 0-0
1 6 h4 c5 1 7 'it>bl c4 was equal in Lanka­
Volzhin, Koszalin 1 999.
7 i.c5
. . .
Here we once more see the typical theme
of knocking the d4-knight from its central
perch. Other black moves include:
a) 7 ... lDc6 8 lDxc6 dxc6 9 f4 e5, which
transposes to Game 58.
b) 7 ... d6 8 f4 can also arise via the
Scheveningen (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e6 6 f4 a6 7 i.d3 'ii'c7
8 0-0) and is studied in Game 55.
c) 7 ... i.d6!?
5 fi:J c 3 'il c l
and now:
c1) 8 'it>h 1 !? lDc6 9 lDxc6 bxc6 (9 ... dxc6
10 f4 e5 transposes to Game 58) 10 f4 e5 1 1
f5 is probably a bit better for White.
c2) 8 f4!? i.c5 9 i.e3 lDc6 1 0 lDf5!
transposes to a precarious line (as far as
Black is concerned) of the Taimanov, for
example 1 0 ... lDe7 (or 1 0...'ir'b6 1 1 lDd6+
'it>f8 12 i.f2!) 1 1 lDxg7+ 'it>f8 12 i.xc5
'if'xc5+ 13 'it>h 1 'it>xg7 14 e5 lDe8 1 5 lDe4
'ir'c7 1 6 'ii'h 5 lDg6 1 7 lDf6 'ii'd 8 1 8 f5 exf5
1 9 'ii'x f5 d5 20 'ir'g5 and White's attack is
worth more than a piece, Topalov-Hiibner,
Wijk aan Zee 1 996.
8 fi:Jb3
White can also protect this knight with 8
i.e3 (see Game 54).
8 i.e7
. . .
This retreat is played the majority of the
time but there is also something to be said
for 8 ... i.a7. Now we reach positions similar
to those studied in Chapter 4. White is
committed to both lDc3 and 0-0, while
Black has committed his queen to c7. ECO
gives 9 'ii'e2 d6 10 i.e3 i.xe3 1 1 'ii'xe3 but
now 1 1 ...lDc6 12 �adl 0-0 transposes to the
note to White's 1 1 th move in Game 3 1 ,
which is fine for Black. White can attempt
to exploit the absence of a black queen on
d8 with 9 i.g5, for example 9 ...lDc6 10 'it>ht
d6 1 1 f4 i.d7 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 'ir'h5 0-0-0!?
14 'ir'xf7 :df8 15 'ir'h5 lDe7 1 6 f5 exf5 1 7
exf5 i.c6 1 8 i.e4 d 5 1 9 i. f3 �hg8 and
131
Sicilian Kan
Black has some compensation for the pawn
in Tischbierek-Eingorn, Ostend 1 992.
9 f4 d6
We've reached another typical Scheve­
ningen-style Kan position. Move orders,
ideas and tactics will be discussed in Games
5 1 -53.
r------.
Game 5 1
Goloshchapov-Kobalija
Ekaterinburg 1 999
1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 lLlcJ '*kc7 6 ..tdJ lLlf6 7 0-0 ..tc5 8
lLlbJ ..te7 9 f4 d6 1 0 '*ifJ
White activates the queen, which can
now take up useful posts on g3 and h3.
Note that this position can also be reached
via a Scheveningen Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 lLl£3
d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 e6 6 f4 a6
1 32
7 'W£3 'Wb6 8 lLlb3 'Wc7 9 i.d3 Ji.e7 10
0-0).
Alternatives to 10 'ti'£3 will be discussed
in Games 52-53.
1 o . . lLlbd7
.
Immediate queenside action with
10 ... b5!? is possible but risky: 1 1 e5! Ji.b7 1 2
'Wg3 lLlh5 1 3 'Wh3 g6 1 4 exd6 'ti'xd6 1 5 f5!
exf5 1 6 Ji.h6 was precarious for Black in
Hindle-Emms, Cromer (rapid) 1 993.
Most Kan players tend to prefer to play
systems with ... lLlbd7, so I will concentrate
my efforts on that. However, the alternative
way with 1 0 ... lLlc6 is certainly also possible.
Play continues 1 1 Ji.d2 b5!? and now:
a) 12 e5!? (a direct attempt at refutation)
1 2... dxe5 1 3 fxe5 'Wa7+! 1 4 i.e3 lLlxe5 1 5
'Wg3 ifb8 1 6 Ji.f4 'Wa7+ ( 1 6...lLlh5 17
i.xe5 lLlxg3 1 8 Jixb8 lLlxfl 1 9 i.f4 traps
the knight) 1 7 Ji.e3 'ti'b8 1 8 Ji.f4 was agreed
drawn in Werle-Brodsky, Hoogeveen 1 999.
b) Naturally White can also build up the
attack more slowly, for example 1 2 l1ae 1 .
1 1 ..td2
The bishop is better placed on d2 than it
is on e3 as now the e-ftle will not be
blocked after l:tae 1 . Alternatives are:
a) 1 1 g4!? (trying to take advantage of the
fact that the d7 -square is not available for
the f6-knight) and now:
al) 1 1 ...g5? 12 fxg5? lLle5 1 3 'Wf4 lLlfd7
is unclear but 1 2 e5! dxe5 13 fxg5 is winning
for White.
a2) 1 1 ...lLlc5 1 2 lLlxc5 'ti'xc5+ 1 3 Ji.e3
ifc7 14 g5 lLld7 1 5 Ji.d4 0-0 16 'Wh5 and
11£3-h3 is corning very quickly. 1 6 ... 11e8 1 7
11 £3 g6? 1 8 'Wxh7+! is a trick worth remem­
bering.
a3) 1 1 ...h6! 1 2 h4 (12 e5? dxe5 1 3 g5
hxg5 1 4 fxg5 e4! hits h2) 12 ...g6 13 g5 hxg5
14 hxg5 lLlh5 1 5 i.e3 b6 16 e5!? i.b7 1 7
exd6 .tx£3!? ( 1 7. . .i.xd6 also looks okay) 1 8
dxc7 i. b7 1 9 i.e4 i.xe4 20 lLlxe4 llc8 2 1
l:tadl llxc7 was equal in Hjartarson-Agrest,
Stockholm 1 996.
b) 1 1 a4 (preventing ... b7-b5 for a long

time, but expending a tempo to do so)
1 1 ... b6 (this is an almost automatic response
to a2-a4; otherwise White will cramp the
queenside with a4-a5!) 1 2 i.d2 i.b7 1 3
l:!.ae1 0-0
and now:
b1) 14 'iig 3?! dS 1 5 exdS (or 1 5 eS tt::'le4!)
1 5 ... tt::'lx d5 1 6 tt::'lx dS i.xdS 1 7 'iih3 fS! 1 8
Wh1 i.f6 and Black was slightly better,
Howell-Emms, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 994.
b2) 14 'iih 3! .l:tad8! 1 5 g4! (1 5 eS?! dxeS
16 fxeS tt::'lx eS 1 7 .l:txeS 'iixeS 1 8 lhf6
.:txd3! wins for Black; this is the point be­
hind 14 ... .l:tad8) with a further split:
b21) 1 5 ... d5!? 1 6 exdS ..icS+ 1 7 tt::'lx cS!
(17 i.e3 exdS 1 8 gS tt::'le4 1 9 tt::'lxcS lt:JdxcS
20 ..id4 was unclear in Tischbierek­
Bischoff, Hanover 1 991) 1 7 ... tt::'lxc5 1 8 dxe6
'iic 6!? (Zeller; 1 8 .. .fxe6 1 9 gS tt::'lxd3 20
cxd3, as in Saravanan-Emms, British Ch.
2002, looks better for White) 19 .l:te2! (19 e7
tt::'lxd3 20 exf8'ii + WxfB 21 cxd3 l:hd3! 22
i.e3 tt::'lxg4 23 'ii £3 'iix £3 24 .l:r.x£3 i.x£3 25
i.xb6 miraculously leads to a level ending)
1 9 ... fxe6 20 gS tt::'lx d3 21 cxd3 lt:JdS 22
'iix e6+ 'iix e6 23 .l:txe6 and White has the
better ending. But 1 9 ... 1:fe8 (instead of
1 9 ... fxe6) looks interesting, for example 20
gS tt::'lxd3 21 cxd3 l:!.xe6!.
b22) 1 5 ... tt::'lc 5!? may be playable: 16 eS
dxeS 17 fxeS tt::'lxd3 1 8 exf6 tt::'lxe 1 1 9 fxe 7
'iixe7 20 .:txe1 eS is unclear, as is 1 6 tt::'lxcS
'iix cS+ 17 ..ie3 'iib 4!.
5 4:J c 3 1i c 7
11 . . .b5
When I ftrst began playing these lines as
Black I was under the impression that this
move was risky here due to 1 2 a4, but now
I've looked at it again I think Black has
enough resources.
1 1 ...b6!?, avoiding a clash with a2-a4, is
the more restrained way to ftanchetto.
White can reply with:
a) 1 2 l:tae1 i.b7 1 3 'iih 3 eS!? (13 ... 0-0?
1 4 eS dxeS 1 5 fxeS tt::'lx eS 1 6 i.f4 i.d6 1 7
i.xeS i.xeS 1 8 lhf6 wins for White, but
Black could prepare castling with
1 3 ....l:tad8!? - remember ....l:txd3! ideas) 1 4
W h1 0-0 1 5 lt:JdS ..ixdS 1 6 exdS .:tfeB 1 7
fxeS dxeS 1 8 c4 a S was roughly level in
Tiviakov-Kudrin, Beijing 1 998.
b) 12 'iig3 (putting immediate pressure
on g7) with a further split:
b1) 1 2 ... 0-0!? 13 .l:tae1 i.b7 14 eS looks
dangerous for Black, for example 14 ... tt::'ld 5
15 fS!? exfS 16 i.h6 g6 17 i.xf8 i.xf8 1 8
tt::'lx dS i.xdS 1 9 i.xfS tt::'lx eS 2 0 c 3 and
Black has insufficient compensation for the
exchange.
b2) 1 2 ... g6 1 3 l:!.ae1 (13 eS tt::'lh S 4 'it'f3
i.b7 15 exd6 i.xd6 16 i.e4 0-0-0! 1 7
i.xb7+ 'iixb7 1 8 tt::'le4 i.e7 was unclear in
Akopian-Kamsky, Palma de Mallorca 1 989)
1 3 ... i.b7 and now:
b21) 1 4 'iih 3 bS 1 5 fS?! (White should
wait for Black to castle before doing this)
1 5 ...gxf5! 1 6 exfS eS 1 7 .l:tf2 .l:tgB and Black
1 33
Sicilian Ka n

has good counterplay, Tilak-Emms, London

1 994.
b22) 14 a4 h6?! (this only weakens the
kingside; 14 ... 0-0! 1 S fS tt:leS is similar to the
main game)

1 3 . . . g6
Killing the threat to the g-pawn and pre­
paring a possible ... tt:\hS in answer to e4-eS.
Black's alternatives are:
a) 1 3 ... b4!? 14 tt:ld1 g6 1 S 'Wh3 lDcS 1 6
1 S eS! tt:\hS 1 6 'W£2 dxeS 1 7 fxeS tt:lxeS tt:lxcS 'WxcS+ 1 7 �h1 d S 1 8 .ie3 'WaS 1 9
18 tt:lbS! axbS 19 i.xbS+ tt:ld7 20 'Wxf7 + eS tt:\e4 20 i.d4 was perhaps a bit better for
�d8 21 'Wxe6 was very good for White, White in Hendriks-Kveinys, Mi.inster 1 993,
Stojanovski-Chuchelov, European Champi­ but I don't see what's wrong with 1 4 ... 0-0.
onship, Ohrid 200 1 . b) 13 ... 0-0 14 eS! tt:ldS 1 S tt:laS! (Ribli)
1 2 .l:!.ae 1 looks quite strong, for example 1 S ...dxeS (or
So what happens if White plays 1 2 a4 1 S ... 'WxaS? 1 6 tt:lxdS 'Wd8 1 7 tt:lxe7+ 'Wxe7
here? Black plays 1 2 ... b4 and now: 1 8 i.b4 tt:lcS 1 9 fS!) 1 6 tt:lxb7 'Wxb7 1 7
a) 1 3 tt:la2?! aS and White must remem­ fxeS, while 1 S fS also looks promising.
ber that 14 c3? fails to 14 ... bxc3 1 S tt:lxc3 1 4 a3
'Wb6 +!. So we have 14 �h1 0-0 1 S c3 and
now I believe Black is fine after 14 ... tt:lcS!?
( 1 S ... bxc3 16 tt:lxc3 i.b7 17 tt:lbS 'Wd8 also
looks playable), for example 1 6 tt:lxcS dxcS
17 eS i.b7 18 'Wh3? tt:le4! 1 9 %:tae1 %:tad8!
20 :xe4 l:txd3 21 'Wxd3 l:td8! and Black is
better.
b) 13 tt:ld1 (this looks stronger) 1 3 ...aS 1 4
� h 1 i.b7 1 S tt:\£2 0-0 1 6 c3 bxc3 1 7 i.xc3
dS 1 8 eS d4 19 i.xaS l:haS 20 'Wh3 l:tdS!
was unclear in Van Haastert-Emms, Gent
2002.
1 2 'Wg3 g6 13 l:tae1 (1 3 eS!?, as in
Akopian-Kamsky above, is also possible) Of course, 14 fS? is just a blunder:
1 3 ... i.b7 transposes to the main game. 14 ...gxfS 1 S exfS l:tg8! and White loses
1 2 i.b7 1 3 'i'g3
. . . down the g-flle . So White makes a useful
Now White has ideas of both 'Wxg7 and move and waits for Black to castle. 14 eS is
e4-eS. also possible though: 14 ... tt:lhS 1 S 'W£2 0-0

1 34

1 6 exd6 .ixd6 1 7 tDe4 i.e? leads to a
roughly level position.
1 4 . . . 0-0
1 5 f5
Now 15 e5 is well met by either 15 ... tDd5
or 1 5 ... tDh5!?. White changes the direction
of the attack slightly, aiming to put pressure
on the e6-pawn.
1 5 . . .l'i:Je5
Grabbing the e5-square is the safest re­
sponse. The alternative for Black is to open
the long diagonal with 1 5 ... exf5!? 16 exf5
and only then 1 6... tbe5. Of course, this also
opens lines for White as well as for Black.
1 6 fxe6
16 .ih6 �feB and only then 17 fxe6 fxe6
18 tbd4 is another possibility, but then
18 ...tDfg4 seems to hold the balance, for
example 1 9 tDxe6? 1i'd7 and White has two
pieces en prise.
1 6 . . .fxe6 1 7 l'i:Jd4
Bringing the knight back into the game
by attacking e6. 1 7 1i'h3?! lDfg4! would sud­
denly give White some problems down the
a7-g1 diagonal.
1 7 . . . i.c8
A strange-looking retreat, but this posi­
tion seems okay for Black. He has a nice
knight on e5 and would stand well after
... .id7. So White needs to do something
quickly.
1 8 l'i:Jf3 l'i:Jh5 1 9 'ifh3 l'i:Jf4 20 i.xf4 :xt4
2 1 l'i:Jxe5 :xt1 + 22 :xt1 dxe5 23 'iff3
5 l'i:J c 3 'ii c 7
i.c5 + 24 'iii>h 1 i.d7
Now if Black is able to consolidate with
... �£8 then the bishop pair would prove an
advantage, so White takes the perperual
check on offer.
25 'iff7 + 'iii>h 8 26 'iff6 + % - %
Game 52
Nagatz-Dautov
Bad Lauterberg 199 1
1 e4 c5 2 l'i:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'i:Jxd4 a6
5 l'i:Jc3 'ifc7 6 i.d3 l'i:Jf6 7 0-0 i.c5 8
l'i:Jb3 i.e7 9 f4 d6 1 0 'ife2
Going for the 1i'e2, .id2, �ael and e4-
e5 plan.
1 o . .l'i:Jbd7
.
Of course, 10 ... tDc6 is once again possi­
ble. This move does block the bishop on b7
but it also has its positive points. One ad­
vantage it has over 10 ... tDbd7 is that it
makes the d7 -square available for the f6-
knight and this might be especially useful
against both e4-e5 and g2-g4-g5 plans. Play
continues 1 1 .id2 b5 1 2 �act .ib7 and
now:
a) 1 3 e5!? dxe5 14 fxe5 lDd7 1 5 .if4
i.h4!? 1 6 g3 i.e? 1 7 lDd5 1i'd8 1 8 tbxe7
tbxe7 was unclear in S.Petrosian-Schar­
gorodskij, Gelsenkirchen 200 1 .
b) 1 3 a 3 0-0 with a further split:
bt) 1 4 e5 dxe5 1 5 fxe5 tbd7 16 i.f4 b4
17 axb4 (17 lDd5? exd5 1 8 e6 1i'd8 1 9 exd7
1 35
Sicilian Kan
'ifxd7 20 axb4 .ixb4 leaves Black a pawn
ahead) 1 7...lLlxb4 1 8 .ie4 .ixe4 1 9 'ifxe4
lLlb6 20 lLld2 'ifc6! and White has problems
with his c2-pawn, Dueball-Chuchelov,
Netherlands 1 998.
b2) 1 4 fS .U.ae8! (preparing to support the
e6-pawn) lS fxe6 fxe6 16 .ie3 lLleS 1 7 lbd4
.idS 18 h3 'ifd7 1 9 lLlf3 lLlg6 with equality,
Khalifman-C.Hansen, Aarhus 1 998.
1 1 .td2
1 1 . . . b5
Barua-Goloshchapov, Calcutta 2002 con­
tinued instead with 1 1 ...b6 1 2 l:tael .ib7
and now, instead of Barna's 13 a4, critical
must be 1 3 eS!?:
a) 13 ...dxeS 1 4 fxeS lLldS 1S lLlxdS .ixdS
1 6 'ifhS (Ribli) 1 6 ... g6 1 7 'ifh6 looks prom­
ising for White.
b) 1 3 ... lLldS 1 4 exd6 i.xd6 1 S fS .ixh2+
(maybe 1 S ... lLlxc3 1 6 i.xc3 eS!?) 16 cJ;h1
i.eS 17 fxe6 fxe6 1 8 lbd4 (Ribli) and again
Black is under a lot of pressure. These varia­
tions should be compared to those in Game
40, where Black has the extra ...g7 -g6
thrown in.
1 2 a3
Eliminating all lines with ...bS-b4, but
both White's alternatives are apparently
more critical.
a) 1 2 l:tael b4 (12 ... .ib7 1 3 eS lLldS leads
to very similar lines to the previous note;
12 ... eS!? is another way of preventing e4-eS)
13 lLld 1 and now:
136
a1) 13 ...lLlcS 1 4 lLlxcS 'ifxcS+ 1 S lD£2 eS
1 6 cJ;h 1 i.d7 17 c3 bxc3 1 8 .ixc3 exf4 19
.ixa6 0-0 was perhaps a bit better for
White, Kodric-Illijin, Bled 2000.
a2) 1 3 ... i.b7 14 eS dxeS 1 S fxeS tLldS 1 6
� h1 lLlcS 1 7 lLlxcS .ixcS 1 8 lD£2 .id4 was
unclear in Garcia Martinez-Korneev, Mala­
ga 2002.
b) 12 a4!? (again striking early on the
queenside) 1 2... b4 1 3 lLld1 (13 lLla2 aS 1 4
'iti>h 1 0-0 1 S c 3 lLlcS! looks okay for Black)
1 3 ... aS 14 lD£2 (but not 14 c3?! bxc3 1 S
lLlxc3?? 'it'b6+!) 1 4... 0-0 1 S c 3 bxc3 1 6
i.xc3
This looks a bit better for White - the
aS-pawn is a weakness and the bS-square
could also prove to be a useful outpost for
White.
1 2 . . . .tb7 1 3 l:tae1 0-0
13 ... eS!? suggests itself as a possible way
to prevent e4-eS. Notice that this move is
usually stronger here than in Maroczy Bind
positions as White has less control over dS.
Following 1 4 fS 0-0 Black can arrange to
play ... d6-dS himself. Instead 1 4 'iti>h1 0-0 1 S
fxeS lLlxeS 1 6 lLld4 g6 1 7 i.gS lLlfg4 1 8
i.f4 l:.fe8 was okay for Black in Jovanovic­
Pavasovic, Pula 2000.
1 4 g4!?
One of the most aggressive plans avail­
able to White - g4-gS is a real positional
threat. However, it seems that in this case
Black is well placed to meet this idea.

Alternative ways to attack include:
a) 14 fS tt::le S! 1 S fxe6 fxe6 1 6 tt::ld 4 lid7
and Black, who has a nice knight on eS, is
doing well.
b) 1 4 eS!? (this move always has to be
considered) and now:
b1) 1 4... dxeS 1 S fxeS tt::ld S 1 6 tt::lx dS i.xdS
17 i.f4 and White has a potentially lethal
attack with lihS and lle3.
b2) 14 ... tt::ld S!, keeping the f-ft!e and the
c 1 -h6 diagonal closed, is a more solid way
to play.
1 4 . . .!0c5!
It's crucial that Black frees the natural re­
treat for the f6-knight - that d7-square.
1 5 g5 !Ofd7 1 6 .U.f3
Logical play; White intends .l:lh3 and
lihS. The immediate 1 6 lihS?! is less effec­
tive: 16 . . .g6! 17 lih6 llfe8 1 8 l:.f3 i.f8 19
lih4 i.g7 20 llh3 tt::l f8! and with the knight
on f8 and bishop on g7, Black has what's
acknowledged by Sicilian players as the per­
fect defensive set-up.
1 6 . . J:tfe8
So that the knight can defend h7 from f8.
1 7 l:!.h3 !Of8?!
17 ... tt::lx d3! 1 8 cxd3 tt::lf8 is a more accu­
rate move order.
1 8 'ii'g4?
1 8 tt::lx cS! dxcS (18 ... lixcS+ 19 i.e3 lic7
20 lihS gives a dangerous attack) 19 eS
(threatening i.xh7 +) 19 ... g6 20 i.e4 looks
like a better way for \Vhite to play.
5 l0 c 3 'ii c 7
1 8 . . . !Oxd3 1 9 cxd3 d5!
Black counter-attacks in the centre and
it's suddenly clear who's in control. That
knight on f8 does a sterling defensive job.
20 f5 exf5 21 exf5 �d6 22 l:!.f1 d4! 23
l0e4 i.xe4 24 dxe4 'ilfc2 25 l:!.e 1 d3! 26
�c3 'ii'x b3 27 �xg7 �xg7 28 f6 + �g8
29 'ii'h 5 d2 30 l:.d 1 �c5 + 31 �h 1 'ilfc4
0-1
Game 53
Acs-Fancsy
Zalakaros 1 997
1 e4 c5 2 !Of3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !Oxd4 a6
5 !Oc3 'ii'c7 6 i.d3 !Of6 7 0-0 i.c5 8
tt:lb3 i.e7 9 f4 d6 1 0 a4!?
A very tricky move. At ftrst it seems as
though White is simply taking prophylactic
measures on the queenside, but this is not
the case.
1 0 . . . b6
Black responds in the normal manner but
here it is more perilous than normal. Both
10 ... tt::lc6 and 10 ... tt::lbd7 avoid an early con­
flict in the centre but do nothing to prevent
1 1 aS, when White has a bind on the queen­
side and Black will find it difficult to reach a
desired set-up. Interesting, though, is the
sequence 1 1 aS tt::ld 7!? 1 2 i.e3 tt::lc S, trying
to put pressure on the aS-pawn.
1 1 e5!
The insertion of a2-a4 and ...b7-b6 makes
137
Sicilian Kan
this a very dangerous move. In particular;
Black has to watch out for tactics along the
h 1 -a8 diagonal.
1 1 . . .l2'lfd7
1 1 ...dxeS 12 fxeS increases the danger for
Black:
a) 12 .. .'ii'xe S? 13 �f4 'if'hS 14 �e2 'if'h4
1 S �g3 'figS 16 �f3 and White wins.
b) 1 2...lLlfd7 1 3 �f4! (13 'if'f3 lLlxeS! 1 4
'if'xa8 � b7 1 S �bS+ axbS 1 6 'if'a7 is un­
clear) 13 ... lt::lc 6 14 'iig4 looks like a very
promising position for White.
1 2 exd6 .i.xd6 1 3 l2'le4 �e7
Black enters the complications. 13 ... �b7
14 lLlxd6+ 'if'xd6 1 S �e3 is a comfortable
two bishops edge for White.
1 4 f5!
It seems only natural to open up the po­
sition even more while Black is struggling to
coordinate his forces.
1 38
1 4 . . . exf5!
The only move. Take it from someone
who's been through the experience; 14 ... e5?
1 S 'if'g4!, as in Sulskis-Emms, Gausdal 1 995,
is truly awful for Black!
1 5 �f4 l2'le5 1 6 l2'lc3
1 6 lLlg3! looks strong, for example 16 ... g6
1 7 �xfS! gxfS 1 8 'if'dS f6 1 9 �xeS! (but not
19 'if'xa8? �b7!) 1 9 .. .fxeS 20 lLlxfS �xfS 21
.l:.xfS and White's attack is worth more than
the extra piece.
1 6 . . . 0-0!
The best, as is seen by the alternatives:
a) 1 6...�d6?! 17 �bS+! axbS 18 lLlxbS
�cS+ 19 ..ti>h 1 'if'c6 20 �xeS 0-0 21 lLlxcS
bxcS and White has a clear advantage.
b) 16...�e6? 1 7 �xfS! (1 7 �bS+? axbS
1 8 lLlxbS 'if'c4 19 �xeS 0-0 was unclear in
Emms-Lund, England 1 997) 1 7...�xfS 1 8
�xeS! 'fixeS 1 9 :et and lLldS will be devas­
tating.
1 7 l2'ld5 �c5 + 1 8 'it>h 1 'i!fb7 1 9 .i.e2
l2'lbc6 20 1fe1 �e6 21 c4 llad8 22 l:l.d 1
'it>h8 23 1fc3 f6 24 l2'lxc5 bxc5 25 .i.e3
Black has survived the opening and still
has that extra pawn. However, the position
is still very unclear due to Black's weak
pawns on cS and fS.
25 . . . 1fa7 26 l:td2 l:tfe8 27 l:tfd1 l:td7 28
h3 f4?! 29 .i.xf4 l2'ld4 30 �h5 l:tb8? 3 1
b4! �xd5 3 2 cxd5 lbd5 3 3 bxc5 l2'lec6
34 �xb8 'ilfxb8 35 �f3 l2'lxf3 36 'ilfxf3
1 -0
 5 ttJ c 3 ik c 7

.ixe3 1 2 �xe3 0-0 1 3 .:.ae1 .ib7 1 4 'iVg3

Game 54 nfeS 1 5 f4 e5!
Hanoman-Hellsten
Stockholm 1996

1 e4 c5 2 ttJt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6

5 ..td3 ttJt6 6 0-0 ikc7 7 ttJc3 ..tcs 8
.tel
At first sight this looks like the most
natural way to continue. By protecting the
knight with a developing move, White man­
ages to keep it in the middle of the board
where the action is. The problem, however,
is that White will find it very difficult to
make any progress without at some point
offering the exchange of dark-squared bish­
ops (probably with lbb3) and that consid­
erably eases Black's task. In fact, after an
exchange on e3 Black is effectively a tempo
up on 5 .id3 i.c5 variations as he hasn't
wasted a move with ... .ic5-a7.
The e4-e5 break is prevented forever.
Again the ... e6-e5 push is perfectly justified
as Black remains in control of the crucial
d5-squarc. Note that the elimination of
dark-squared bishops helps Black. I f we
inserted a white bishop on d2 and a Black
one on e7 Black would be slightly more
cramped. The game continued 1 6 f5 lLlcS
1 7 ne3 :adS 1 S �h4 h6 1 9 .l::.g3 'it f8! 20
nm �e7 21 nh3 d5! (the thematic central
break; White now finds his major pieces arc
offside) 22 exd5 e4 23 .:.e3 lbxb3 24 cxb3
'ir'c5 25 i.c4 lLlxd5 26 lLlxdS .ixd5 27
.ixd5 nxd5 2S f6 nd1 + 29 'it£2 �f5 + 30
'itg3 �e5+ 3 1 �f4 �xf4+ 32 'itxf4 nn +
33 'it>g4 l:!.xf6 and Black eventually won the
ending.

8 d6
. . .

Sensibly defending the bishop on c5. The

line S ... b5?! 9 lbdxb5! axb5 10 lLlxb5 'it'e5
1 1 i.xc5 'iVxc5 1 2 b4! �b6 13 e5 lbd5 1 4
lbd6+ 'ite7 1 5 'iVh5 g6 1 6 .ixg6! gave
White a winning attack in lvanchuk­
J.Polgar, Monaco (rapid) 1 994, while
S ... lbc6? is met very strongly by 9 lbdb5!.
9 ike2 !tJbd7 1 0 f4
Another example of perfect black strat­
egy can be seen in the game Motwani-
Bischoff, Groningen 1 990: 10 a4 b6 1 1 lLlb3 1O . . . b5 1 1 !tJb3

1 39
Sicilian Kan
It's difficult to suggest anything else.
White can hardly hope to achieve the e4-e5
break with his bishop blocking the e-ftle.
1 1 . . . i.xe3 + 1 2 tt'xe3 0-0
Black has a perfectly comfortable posi­
tion and in fact it's White who should be
thinking about equalising.
1 3 h3?! e5! 1 4 .U.ae1 i.b7 1 5 a3 .l:f.fe8
1 6 f5 l:taca 1 7 l:tf2 d5!
Model strategy. Black achieves his aim
with this central push and now takes over
the initiative. The end is now surprisingly
swift.
1 8 lDxd5 i.xd5 1 9 exd5 e4! 20 .if 1
lDxd5 21 tt'd4 lD7f6 22 .l:f.fe2 e3 23 c3
.l:te4 24 tt'd 1 tt'g3 25 tt'c 1 .l:f.ce8 26 lDd4
lbt4 0-1
Game 55
Pikula-Cvitan
Bie/ 1 996
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6
5 lDc3 tt'c7 6 i.d3 lDf6 7 0-0 d6 a f4
This position very often occurs via the
Scheveningen move order 1 e4 c5 2 ltJ£3 d6
3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 lLlc3 e6 6 f4 a6 7
..td3 'ilic7 8 0-0.
a . . . b5
Black develops his queenside to reach the
ideal defensive set-up before castling. White
also has to be on alert for ... b5-b4 ideas.
Black's main alternative is to prepare to
140
castle first: 8 .....te7 9 �h1 (with the knight
on d4 it's worth playing this to avoid ... 'i!ib6
ideas) 9 ... 0-0 10 'ilie2 (this isn't the only
plan) 1 0 ... ltJbd7 1 1 i.d2 and now:
a) 1 1 ...�e8 12 �aet ltJf8 1 3 e5 ltJ6d7
14 ltJd5! 'ilid8 (14 ... exd5 1 5 exd6 'ilixd6
1 6 ltJf5 'ilie6 17 'ili£3 'ilif6 18 i.c3 wins) 1 5
ltJxe7+ 'ilixe7 1 6 exd6 'ilixd6 1 7 ltJf5 'ilic7
1 8 ..tc3 f6 1 9 'ilih5 'illd8 20 ltJxg7! �xg7 21
�e3 ltJg6 22 .U.h3 ltJdf8 23 i.xg6 hxg6 24
'ilih8+ �f7 25 �h7+! ltJxh7 26 'ilixh7+
�f8 27 ..tb4+ 'ilie7 28 i.xe7+ �xe7 29
'ilihB+ �f7 30 �d1 1 -0 Manduch-Perman,
correspondence 1 987.
b) 1 1 . . .b5 12 �ae1 i.b7 1 3 e5!? (13 �f3
with the idea of �h3 also looks encouraging
for White - the knight on d4 dissuades
Black from playing ...e6-e5) 1 3. .. ltJd5 and
now:
b1) 14 'ilih5 g6 1 5 'ilih6 dxe5 1 6 ..txg6
(or 1 6 fxe5 ltJxe5 1 7 ltJxd5 ..txd5 1 8 i.c3
f6 and White couldn't find a good way to
continue, Siklosi-Hubig, St Ingbert 1 987)
1 6 ...hxg6 1 7 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 8 'ilixg6+ �h8
looks like nothing more than a perpetual
check.
b2) 14 f5!? ltJxc3 1 5 ..txc3 ltJxe5
(15 ... dxe5? 16 fxe6 exd4 17 ..txh7+! wins)
1 6 fxe6 looked better for White in Malevin­
sky-Dragomarezkij, Kuibyshev 1 98 1 .
The variation 8 ... ltJbd7 9 � h 1 b 5 1 0 'ilie2
i.b7 is an often-used move order to reach
the text.

9 'it>h 1 �b7
It's important to achieve some control
over the long diagonal as soon as possible.
The careless 9 ... i..e 7? runs into 10 e5! and
now:
a) 1 0 .. .'�Jd5 1 1 lLJxd5 exd5 1 2 e6 was aw­
ful for Black in Lau-Lutz, Graz 1 993.
b) 10 ... lLJfd7 and now Ftacnik's 1 1 i..e4
d5 (1 1 ...i..b 7? 1 2 exd6 i..xd6 1 3 lLidxb5!) 1 2
i..x d5!? exd5 1 3 lLixd5 'iic 5 1 4 lLib3 'iic4 1 5
lLia5 looks very favourable for White.
c) 1 0 ... dxe5 1 1 fxe5 and now:
cl) 1 1 ...lLifd7 1 2 1Wf3 0-0 1 3 'iih 3 (1 3
'ifxa8?? i.. b7 1 4 'ifa7 i.xg2+) 1 3 ... h6 14
lLixe6 and White wins.
c2 1 1 ...'iix e5 12 i.. f4 with a further split:
c21) 1 2 ... 1Wh5 13 i..e2 'iic 5 (or 13 ... 1Wg6
1 4 i.. f3) 1 4 i.. f3 lLJd5 1 5 lLJxd5 exd5 1 6
lLJb3 'ifb6 1 7 i..x d5 i..b7 1 8 i..x f7+! 'ifi>xf7
19 i..c 7+ and White wins.
c22) 1 2...1Wc5 1 3 \Wf3 1Wa7 (or 1 3 ... lLid5
1 4 lLJb3 'ifc6 1 5 i..xb8 llxb8 1 6 'ifxf7+) 1 4
i..e 3! 'ifb7 ( 1 4. . .i..b7 1 5 i..e4!) 1 5 i..e4
lLixe4 1 6 'ifxf7+ 'it>d8 1 7 llad1 and Black
cannot hope to survive.
1 0 'i!t'e2 tiJbd7 1 1 �d2 �e7 1 2 b4! ?
This i s perhaps not the ftrst move that
comes to mind but, despite weakening the
queenside (in particular the c-ftle), it does
have its merits. For a start ... b5-b4 is ruled
out of the equation, while White prepares to
attack on the queenside himself with a2-a4.
Other ways to continue include:
5 tiJ c 3 'i!t' c 7
a) 1 2 l:tael b4! (12...0-0 transposes to the
note 'b' to Black's 8th move) 1 3 lLia4 (I
prefer 1 3 lLid 1) 1 3 ... lLic5 14 lLixc5 dxc5 1 5
lLJb3 c4! 1 6 i..xc4 lLixe4 1 7 f5 exf5 1 8 .l:.xf5
0-0 and Black had no problems in Dvoirys­
Ribli, Bundesliga 1 992.
b) 12 a3 (this looks sensible) 12 ... 0-0 1 3
llacl and now I think Black's strongest
move is 1 3 ... l:.ad8!, preventing 14 e5 on
account of 14 e5? dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ifxe5! 1 6
'ifxe5 lLixe5 and the knight o n d 4 hangs.
Instead, I believe that White should gradu­
ally build up a kingside attack with 1 4 l:tf3.
1 2 . . . 0-0
12 ... lLib6 13 a4 bxa4 14 b5!? axb5 1 5
i.xb5+ lLibd7 1 6 e 5 dxe5 1 7 fxe5 lLJd5 1 8
lLixd5 i..x d5 1 9 c4 i..b7 20 'iig4 'ifxe5 was
very unclear in Kupreichik-Akesson, Berlin
1 987, but the simple 14 lLixa4 looks like an
edge for White.
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 .l::txa4 tiJb6 1 5 .l:.aa 1
Also possible is 1 5 l:ta5 llfc8 1 6 e5
(Rohl-Bologan, New York 1 998) and now
Rohl gives 1 6 ... lLJfd5! 1 7 lLJxd5 i..x d5 1 8
llxa6 llxa6 1 9 i..xa6 i.c4! and Black has
some compensation for the pawn.
1 5 . . . d5!?
15 ...g6 1 6 i..xa6 llxa6 1 7 llxa6 e5 18
lLib3 i..xa6 1 9 'ifxa6 exf4 20 llxf4 llc8 21
'iffl ! left White a pawn ahead in the game
Short-Seirawan, Arnhem 1 983.
1 6 e5
1 6 . . . tiJe4!
14 1
Sicilian Ka n
A necessary pawn sacrifice changes the
complexion of the game. 1 6 ...lLlfd7? allows
White to unleash a mating attack with 1 7
i.xh7+! (Cebalo) 1 7...'it>xh7 1 8 'iVh5+ 'it>g8
1 9 l:!.f3, for example 1 9 ... f6 20 l:!.g3! (Black's
problem is that he cannot defend e6)
20 ... l:!.f7 21 l:th3 l:tff8 22 lLlxe6 'iVc6 23
lLld4 'iVc7 24 e6 and White wins.
1 7 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 8 ..txe4 ..txe4 1 9 'ii'xe4
'iifc4 20 c3 lLld5 21 l:.f3 l:.ac8
White is a pawn ahead but it will be very
difficult to exploit this due to the bind that
Black has on the queenside. I would say that
Black has just enough play for the pawn to
keep the balance.
22 h4 l:lfd8 23 l:ld3 g6 24 h5 ..tf8 25
l:.e1 lLle7 26 g4 lLlc6 27 ..te3 l:.d5 28
l:.ed1 a 5 29 bxa5 l:.xa5 30 'ii'f3 l:ld5 31
g5 lLle7 32 ..tf2 l:lcd8 33 lt>g2 lLlf5 34
hxg6 hxg6 35 'ii'h 3 lLlg7 36 J:!.h 1 lLlh5
37 l:!.f3 l:la5 38 'ii'g4 l:.da8?
This allows White a very strong counter­
sacrifice. 38 ... l:td7 is best.
39 l:lxh5! gxh5 40 'it'xh5 .tta 1 41 g6
'ii'f 1 + 42 lt>g3 fxg6 43 'ii'x g6 + ..tg7 44
'ii'xe6 + lt>h7 45 'ii'f 5 + lt>g8 46 lLle6
l:.8a6 47 l:.d3 l:.d 1 48 l:.xd1 'ii'xd 1 49
lLlg5 1 -0
Game 56
Widenmann-Andersen
Com.rpondence 1985
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 lLlc3 'Wc7 6 ..td3 b5
Black has to be wary of playing both
... 'iVc7 and ... b 7-b5 very early on, especially
when White develops very quickly, as in this
game.
7 0-0 ..tb7
7 ... lLlf6!? may well be Black's best move
here:
a) 8 l:te 1 d6 9 a4 b4 1 0 lLla2 looks good
for White, for example 1 0... d5? 1 1 exd5
lLlxd5 12 �e4 �b7 13 lLlxe6! and White
Wins, Brustkern-Buech, Germany 1 997.
1 42
However, 8 ... �c5! looks stronger. After 9
lLlb3 �d6 we transpose to note 'a' to
White's 9th move in Game 67.
b) 8 'iVe2 will probably lead into a trans­
position to Game 55 after B .. �b 7 9 'it>h 1 (9
.
e5!?) �e7 10 f4 d6 or 8... d6 9 f4 �b7 1 0
�h l .
c) 8 e5!?
(a brutal attempt at a refutation, but...)
8...'iVxe5 9 'iVf3 d5 (9 ... �d6? 1 0 g3 l:!.a7 1 1
lLlf5 exf5 1 2 �f4 'iVc5 1 3 �xd6 'iVxd6 1 4
'iVe3+ was winning for White in Navarro­
Urday Caceres, Merida 1 997) 10 lLlfS!? and
now:
c1) 10 ... 'iVc7 (Mikhalevski-Finkel, I srael
1 997) and now Mikhalevski suggests 1 1 l:!.e 1
and 1 1 i.f4, both of which look very dan­
gerous.
c2) 10 ... exf5 1 1 �f4. Now Mikhalevski
gives the winning line 1 1 ...'ii'e 6? 1 2 l:!.ae1
lLle4 13 lLlxe4 fxe4 14 .ixe4 dxe4 1 5 l:txe4
but I can't find anything obvious for White
after 1 1 ...'iVe7!, planning ... �e6.
8 .tte 1 !
I believe that in this variation White
should forget about playing f2-f4 and con­
centrate instead on piece play, hoping to
cash in on his obvious development advan­
tage.
8 . . . d6
Black has a multitude of alternatives but
nothing totally convincing:
a) 8 ... lLlf6 9 e5 lLld5 and now both 1 0

�d2 lDxc3 1 1 �xc3 lDc6 1 2 lDxc6 �xc6
1 3 1i'g4 (Tairnanov) and 1 0 lDxdS �xd5 1 1
a4 b4 1 2 1i'g4 look better for White.
b) 8...�c5 9 �e3 lDf6? (9 ... lDe7 10 1i'h5
is also very good for White; 9 ...1i'b6 looks
relatively best) 10 lDdxbS! axb5 1 1 lDxbS
'it'c6 12 �xc5 1i'xc5 1 3 e5 and now:
b1) 1 3. .. .ic6 14 b4 1i'xb4 1 5 exf6 lDa6
16 fxg7 l:.g8 17 l:.b 1 gave White a clear
advantage in Keres-Benko, Curacao 1 962.
b2) 13 ... .ia6 (Idler-Feuerstein, corres­
pondence 1 990) and now I like 14 b4! 'it'b6
1 5 lDd6+ c;t>m 16 b5 �b7 17 lDxb7 1i'xb7
1 8 exf6 gxf6 1 9 a4.
c) 8 ... lDc6 9 lDxc6 and now:
cl) 9 ... �xc6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lDd5!.
c2) 9 ... dxc6 10 e5 lDe7 reaches a position
we will consider in Game 59 (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3
e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 lDc3 1i'c7 6 �e2
b5 7 0-0 �b7 8 l:.e1 lDc6 9 lDxc6 dxc6 1 0
e5 lDe7 1 1 .id3) but with White to move
instead of Black. Obviously this should be
enough to give White some advantage.
c3) 9 ...1i'xc6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lLJdS lDf6 12
�d2 lDxd5 (12...�c5 1 3 c4 bxc3 1 4 lDxf6+
gxf6 15 �xc3 was clearly better for White,
Fernando-Strikovic, Odivelas 2000) 1 3 exd5
1i'c5 14 �e4 with a big plus for White, Tal­
Gipslis, Riga 1 958.
d) 8 ...b4?! (as if White needed an invita­
tion!) 9 lDd5! exd5 1 0 exd5+ c;t>d8 (10... �e7
1 1 lDf5 c;t>f8 loses to 12 l:.xe7 lDxe7 13 d6)
(Kindermann-J .Polgar, Aruba 1 992) and
5 li:J c 3 'ii c 7
now Kindermann gives 1 1 1i'h5! with the
following lines:
d1) 1 1 ...d6 12 �g5+ lDf6 13 �xf6+ gxf6
14 l:.e3 and l:.ae1 will be murderous, for
example 1 4...l:tg8 1 5 l:tae1 1i'd7 1 6 1i'xh7
l:.g7 1 7 1i'h8.
d2) 1 1 ...g6 1 2 1i'e2 �e7 1 3 �h6! lDxh6
14 1i'xe7+ c;t>c8 1 5 'ii'g S 1i'c5 16 lDf3 lDfS
1 7 �xf5 gxf5 1 8 l::ta d1 and it's unlikely that
Black will survive.
e) 8 ... �d6 9 1i'h5!? (9 lDf3, threatening
�xb5, also looks good) 9 ... lDf6 10 1i'h4
lbc6 (or 1 0... �e7 1 1 e5 lDe4 1 2 1i'g4 lDxc3
13 1i'xg7!) 1 1 lDdxbS! axb5 12 lDxbS 1i'b8
1 3 lDxd6+ 'it'xd6 14 e5 lDxe5 1 5 1i'g3 �xg2
(15 ... 1:-aS 1 6 �f4 lDfg4 17 1i'xg4 was win­
ning for White in Nikitin-Shofman, Mos­
cow 1 966) 1 6 1i'xe5 'it'c6 1 7 1i'b5 and the
queenside pawns will be very dangerous in
the ending.
9 .i.g5
I also like the immediate 9 a4!?.
9 . .li:Jd7
.
Again Black has to tread very carefully:
a) 9 ... h6 10 �h4 g5 (10... lDd7? loses to
1 1 lDxe6!) 1 1 �g3 .ig7 1 2 �xb5+! axb5 1 3
lDdxbS 'it'd7 1 4 1i'xd6! lDa6 1 5 'it'b6 �xc3
1 6 bxc3 c;t>e7 17 lDc7! and White is winning,
Duenhaupt-Keller, correspondence 1 966.
b) 9 ... �e7 10 �xe7 lDxe7 (10 ...1i'xe7 1 1
lDfS!) 1 1 �xb5+! axb5 1 2 lDdxbS 1i'b6 1 3
lDxd6+ c;t-[8 1 4 lDxb7 and White is win-
ning, Bozic-Molerovic, Yugoslavia 1 966.
143
Sicilian Ka n
c) 9 ... lDf6 1 0 J..x f6 gxf6 t t lDdS! exdS 1 2
exdS+ '1fild8 1 3 'ii' £3 ! and now:
cl) 1 3 ...lDd7 t 4 lDc6+! wins.
c2) 13 ...J..e7 t 4 lDfS l:r.e8 t 5 lDxe7 l:r.xe7
t 6 'ii'xf6 J..x dS 1 7 J.. fS! (threatening 'ii'h 8+)
t7 ... J..e6 t8 J..xe6 fxe6 t9 %:txe6 and White
wins (Ciocaltea).
c3) 1 3 ... f5 t 4 'ii'x fS i.g7 t S 'figS+ f6 t 6
lDe6+ and White won in Ghizdavu-Covaci,
Romania t 970.
10 a4
10 lDdS!?, with similar variations to the
next note, is also possible.
1 0 . . . bxa4
The main alternative is t O ... b4 and now:
a) t t ltJdS!? exdS t2 exdS+ J..e7
(t2 ... lDe7 t3 J..xe7 J..xe7 t 4 lDfS lDeS t S
lDxe7 transposes) t 3 lDfS lDeS t 4 lDxe7
lDxe7 15 i.xe7 'ii'x e7! (1 5 ... '1txe7 t6 f4
'ifcS+ t 7 'itht 'it'xdS t 8 'it'g4!? hS!? t 9
'ii'h 3! gave White an edge in Ghinda-Kirov,
Timisoara t 987) t 6 f4 0-0! t 7 fxeS dxeS and
now Ghinda assesses both t 8 d6 'ii'e 6 19
'ifd2 .:.adS 20 l:.ad t and t8 'ii'h S fS t 9
i.xfS g6 20 J..xg6 hxg6 2 t 'ii'xg6+ 'it'g7 22
'ii'e 6+ as unclear.
b) Given that Black seems to be okay in
the complications above, I prefer the sim­
pler t t lDa2!, giving Black headaches over
his b-pawn. t l ...dS loses to t 2 exdS J..x dS
13 lDxe6! J..xe6 t4 l:r.xe6+ fxe6 t S 'ii'h S+,
tt ... aS t 2 lDbS looks good for White, while
t l ...lDgf6 t 2 lDxb4 'ii'c S (t2... d5 1 3 lDxdS
1 44
exdS t 4 exdS+ 'itd8 t S lDc6+!) 1 3 J..xf6
lDxf6 t 4 c3 J..e 7 t S 'ii'e 2 gave Black no real
compensation for the pawn, Marciano­
Renet, Strasbourg t 992.
1 1 �xa4 lLlgf6
t l ...J..e 7 t2 i.xe7 lDxe7 t3 lDb3 0-0 14
'fiat gave Black problems with his isolated
a-pawn in Zarnicki-Giardelli, Martinez Valle
t 993.
1 2 �c4!?
Really entering into the spirit of the
game. I f White wants to be more mundane,
then t2 J..x f6 lDxf6 1 3 'fiat looks good, for
example t 3...a5? t4 J..b S+ lDd7 t S lDdS!
exdS t6 exdS+ '1fild8 t7 l:r.c4 'ii'b6 t8 i.xd7
'1filxd7 t9 'ii'a4+ and White wins.
1 2 . . .'i!fb8 1 3 lLld5!?
1 3 . . .lLlxd5??
Black has to try 13 ... exd5! t 4 exdS+ lDeS!
(t4 ... '1fild8 loses to t S lDc6+ J..xc6 t6 dxc6
lDcS 17 J..x f6+ gxf6 t 8 'it'£3 ri;;c7 t 9 'ii'x f6)
t S f4 J..x dS and although I would still much
rather be White, I can't find anything too
devastating.
1 4 exd5 i.xd5 1 5 lLlxe6! i.xe6 1 6
.l:xe6 + fxe6 1 7 'i!fh5 + g6 1 8 'i!fxg6 +
hxg6 1 9 i.xg6 mate I 1 -01
Game 57
Barash-Batakovs
Correspondence 1 983
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6

5 li:Jc3 'Wc7 6 .i.d3 li:Jc6 7 li:Jxc6 bxc6
The alternative recapture 7 ... dxc6 will be
studied in the next game.
8 0-0 li:Jf6
This position often arises from the Tai­
manov Sicilian via the move order 1 e4 cS 2
t2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDc6 5 ltJc3 a6 6
ltJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 "fic7 (7 ... d5 is more
usual) 8 0-0 lDf6.
9 iie2 d5 1 0 .i.g5 .i.b7 1 1 f4 .i.e7 1 2
e5 li:Jd7 1 3 .i.xe7 �xe7
1 4 li:Jd1 ! ?
A different move but with the same idea
is 14 lDa4 cS 1 5 c4 d4 1 6 i.e4 Jixe4 17
"fixe4 g6 1 8 b3 aS 1 9 lDb2 hS 20 t2Jd3 and
White's well-placed knight gives him the
edge, Spassky-Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca
1 969.
14 . . . c5 1 5 c4 dxc4?!
Black should create a protected passed
5 li:J c 3 'W c 7
pawn with 1 5... d4 although I still prefer
White after 16 lDf2!, planning Jie4 and
t2Jd3.
1 6 .i.xc4 g6 1 7 .U.c1 h5 1 8 li:Je3 .U.hd8
1 9 llce1 !
1 9 . . .li:Jf8? !
Barash suggests 1 9 ... t2Jb6 as an un­
provement.
20 f5!
After this White gets a very strong attack.
20 . . . .i.e4
20 ... exf5 21 e6! fxe6 22 i.xe6 'rtxe6 23
lDxfS+ 'itd7 24 ltJe7! is very strong.
21 fxe6 fxe6 22 iif2 .i.f5 23 li:Jxf5 +
exf5 24 .U.d 1 ! �e8 25 ..td5 .U.ab8 26
iih4 lld7 27 e6 .U.d6 28 .i.b3 .U.xb3 29
axb3 llxe6 30 iic4 iie7 3 1 .U.a 1 'Wd6
32 .U.a5 li:Jd7 33 .U.fa1 We5 34 .U.xa6
.U.xa6 35 Wxa6 Wd4 + 36 �h 1 li:Jf6 37
Wa4 + 1 -0
Game 58
Tiviakov-Milov
Groningen 1998
1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6
5 li:Jc3 Wc7 6 .i.d3 li:Jc6 7 li:Jxc6 dxc6 8
0-0 e5
This type of position can be compared to
the one reached after 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 e6 3 d4
cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 Jid3 ltJc6 6 ltJxc6 dxc6 7
0-0 eS. On one hand, White's knight would
normally prefer to go to d2 (as in Games
145
Sicilia n Ka n

46-47). On the other hand, Black's ...'ir'c7 is c3-knight and playing c2-c4.
only semi-useful. Black would probably 1 3 . . . axb5 14 llxa8 + .i.xa8
have preferred to use the tempo elsewhere.
9 f4 lbf6
Talking of comparisons, this position re­
sembles the one which arises after 1 e4 c5 2
lZJB e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lZJxd4 a6 5 .id3 lZJf6 6
0-0 'ir'c7 7 c4 lZJc6 8 lZJxc6 dxc6 9 f4 e5 (see
Game 1 6). Here it is obvious that the devel­
oping lZJc3 is a better move than the weak­
ening c2-c4.
1 0 'it>h1

A good waiting move to see what Black
is going to do with his dark-squared bishop.
10 fxe5?! lZJg4! is fine for Black.
1 o . . ..tds
.
1 5 .i.xb5! ?
Now the game becomes extremely com­
plicated.
1 5 . . . cxb5 1 6 lbxb5 'iic 6 1 7 'iix d6
1 7 lZJxd6+? <j;;e7 traps the knight on d6.
1 7 . . .'iix b5 1 8 lld 1 !
From this point on, Black has to play a
series of only moves to stay in the game.
1 8 . . . lbd7 1 9 .i.g5 f6 20 'iie6 + 'it>d8
20 .. .'itf8? 21 c4! 'ir'a4 22 b3 'ii'c 6 23
l:txd7 'ii'xe6 24 fxe6 is winning for White.

After the logical-looking 1 O ... .ic5 I like

the idea of maintaining the tension with 1 1
'ir'e1 !?, for example 1 1 ...b5 1 2 a4 l:tb8 1 3
axb5 axb5 1 4 'it'g 3 lZJg4 1 5 f5 h5 1 6 h 3 .i b7
1 7 lZJd 1 ! f6 1 8 lZJe3 lZJxe3 1 9 .ixe3 i.xe3
20 'ii'xe3 and White was doing very well in
Christiansen-Kekelidze, New York 2000.
1 1 f5 b5 1 2 a4 .i.b7!
12 ...b4?! gives away the c4-square -
White can re-route his knight via b 1 and d2.
The move 1 2... l:tb8, however, looks play­ 21 c4
able and is the way forward if Black doesn't The main alternative 21 i.xf6+!? gxf6 22
fancy entering the labyrinth of complica­ 'ii'x f6 + �c7 23 'ii'x h8 i.xe4 is unclear as
tions in this game. Black has serious counterplay against g2 (he
1 3 axb5 ! ? already threatens ... i.xg2+).
I f White wishes t o play more positionally, 21 . . .'iic 6 22 lld6 'iia 4
he can try 1 3 'ii'e 2 followed by moving the Black has to keep queens on. 22 ... l:te8 23

146

�xc6 �xe6 24 �xe6 fxg5 25 b4! .ixe4 26
c5 is probably a winning ending for White.
23 �e3!
So that the bishop can protect the white
king. Now b2-b3 is a major threat.
23 . . .�c7 24 b3 �a 1 + 25 �g1 :d8
26 l:txd7 +
After this move the game ends in White
giving perpetual check. Tiviakov gives an
alternative line in which it is Black who ends
up giving the perpetual: 26 l:ta6 1i'dt 27 c5
.ixe4 28 �a7+ �b8 29 c6 i.xg2+ 30 �xg2
1i'g4+ 3 1 �f1 1Wdt + 32 �g2 1i'g4+.
26 .. J:txd7 27 �b6 + 'it>c8 28 �c5 +
�b8 29 �b5 + % - %
The black king cannot escape the checks
after 29 ... l:tb7 30 1i'e8+ �c7 31 1i'e7+ �c8
32 1i'e8+.
Game 59
Midoux-Eingorn
Metz 2000
1 e4 c5 2 l"Of3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l"Oxd4 a6
5 l"Oc3 �c7 6 �e2 b5
I will just mention that Black can also
play more conservatively with 6 ... lt:\f6 7 0-0
and now:
a) 6 ....ib4 8 1i'd3 lt:\c6 9 �h 1 ! transposes
to a well known line of the Sicilian Tai-
manov.
b) 7 ....ic5!?, playing as in Games 5 1 -54,
keeps a Kan flavour. 8 .ie3 is met by 8 ... d6
5 l"O c3 �c 7
while 8 lt:\b3 is met by 8 ... .ie7, followed by
the usual Kan development.
7 0-0
An alternative for White is 7 f4 .ib7 8
.if3 lt:\c6 and now:
a) 9 lt:\xc6 .ixc6 1 0 0-0 (10 .ie3 .ie7 is
equal - Eingorn) 10 0-0 .ic5+ 1 1 �hl b4
1 2 lt:\e2 ltJf6 1 3 lt:\g3 h5! and Black has a
dangerous counter-attack on the kingside,
Aagaard-Mortensen, Copenhagen 1 997.
b) 9 i.e3 l:tc8 10 lt:\b3 lt:\a5! 1 1 lt:\xa5
'iixa5 12 1i'd3 ltJf6 13 0-0 b4 1 4 lt:\d t 'iic7
15 �cl 'iic4! with equality, Hort-Eingorn,
Dortmund 1 988.
7 . . �b7
.
8 1:1e 1
Preparing to liberate White's pieces with
the e4-e5 advance. The alternative is 8 .if3
lt:\c6 and now:
a) 9 �el .id6! 1 0 g3 lt:\xd4 1 1 'iixd4
.ie5 1 2 1i'd3 lt:\e7 and Black has equalised,
Panchenko-Miles, Las Palmas 1 978.
b) 9 lt:\xc6 dxc6 with a further split:
bl) The pawn sacrifice 10 e5?! was intro­
duced by a very young Garry Kasparov
against Lev Polugaevsky back in 1 978. Kas­
parov won a great game but time has found
the antidote to this idea: 1 0 ...1i'xe5 1 1 �e 1
1i'd6! 1 2 .igS 1i'xdl 13 �axdl .ie7 1 4
.ixe 7 �xe7 1 5 lt:\e4 lt:\f6 1 6 lt:\cS �ab8 1 7
�e3 lt:\d5 1 8 �a3 .ic8 1 9 lt:\xa6 �aS 20
ltJcS lha3 21 bxa3 f5 with a clear black
advantage, Arzumanian-Moroz, Marganets
147
Sicilian Kan
1 999.
b2) 10 a4 tt::l f6 1 1 l:te 1 eS gives a rather
dull equality, G.Garcia-Zapata, Yopal 1 997.
8 lLlc6 9 lLlxc6
. . .
Or 9 i. fl ! ? and now:
a) 9 ...b4?! 10 ltJdS! �dB (10 ... exdS 1 1
tt::lx c6! dxe4 1 2 .l:he4+ tt::le 7 1 3 .lhe7+!
i.xe7 14 tt::lxe7 �eS 1 S �g4! [Oil] leaves
Black in trouble) 1 1 i. f4 l:tcB (or 1 1 ...eS 1 2
tt::lxc6 dxc6 1 3 i.xeS cxdS 1 4 exdS) 1 2
tt::lxc6 l:txc6 1 3 �d2 tt::l f6 1 4 l:tad 1 i.cS 1 S
tt::lxb4 l:tcB 1 6 i.gS and White was clearly
better in 011-Movsesian, Polanica Zdroj
1 996.
b) 9 ...tt::l f6! 10 tt::lxc6 �xc6 1 1 eS b4 1 2
tt::le 2 tt::ld S 1 3 a 3 �b6 1 4 axb4 i.xb4 1 S c3
i.cS 16 tt::ld4 0-0 was equal in Sareen­
Vyzmanavin, Calcutta 1 992.
9 dxc6
. . .
10 e5!
This is the point behind B .l:.et . White
gains space on the kingside and gives him­
self the opportunity to use the e4-square.
Now B ... �xeS?! 9 ..txbS is favourable for
White as Black is left with split pawns on
the queenside.
1 0 J1d8
. .
The main alternative for Black here is
10 ... tt::\e7 1 1 i.d3 and now:
a) 1 t ...l:tdB 1 2 i.gS (12 �e2?! cS 13 i.gS
h6 1 4 �hS l:td4 was nice for Black in Dirni­
trov-Vyzmanavin, Elenite 1 993) 1 2... h6 1 3
�hS l:td7 1 4 a4 b 4 1 S tt::le4 and I prefer
148
White, Kamsky-Lutz, Dortmund 1 993.
b) 1 1 ...0-0-0 (this is risky but maybe
okay) 12 a4 cS 1 3 axbS c4 14 bxa6 i.c6!
with massive complications in Marciano­
Korneev, Ubeda 1 996.
1 1 i.d3 c5
12 'i'h5
White must move the queen to avoid
bishop-winning ... cS-c4. 1 2 �e2?! tt::le7
transposes to Dirnitrov-Vyzmanavin above,
but 12 �g4!? is an enticing alternative:
a) 12 ... tt::\e 7 13 i.gS l:td4 14 �g3 tt::lc 6 (or
14 ... c4 1 S i.xe7 cxd3 1 6 i.xf8 'iti>xf8 1 7
cxd3 �dB 1 B l:ted1 fS 1 9 exf6 gxf6 20 tt::le2
l:td6 21 �h4 .l:.gB 22 tt::lg3 and Black doesn't
have enough play for the pawn, Nataf­
Zapata, Havana 2002) 1 S a4 b4 1 6 tt::le4 c4
17 i.ft tt::lx eS 1B tt::l f6+ gxf6 1 9 ..txf6 l:tg4
20 �xeS �xeS 21 l:txeS and Black has
more weaknesses in this endgame,
A.Kovacevic-Pavlovic, Herceg Novi 200 1 .
b) 1 2. . .l:td4 1 3 i.e4!? i.xe4! (13...�xeS??
loses to 14 i.f4 �f6 1 S i.gS, while 1 3 . .. b4?
1 4 �£3! ..txe4 1 S tt::lxe4 �xeS 16 c3! l:tdS
17 tt::l f6+! 1 -0 was the finish to the game
Bezgodov-Pugachov, Petropavlovsk 1 999)
14 l:txe4 (14 tt::lxe4!? �xeS 1 S c3 l:tdS 1 6
i.f4 gives White some play for the pawn)
1 4... �xeS! 1 S i.e3! l:txe4 1 6 �xe4 �xe4 1 7
tt::lxe4 tt::l f6 1 B tt::\xcS i.xcS 1 9 i.xcS (Bez­
godov) when White has probably got a
minute endgame advantage.
1 2 g6!?
. . .

This relatively new move may well be
Black's best choice. 12 ... lLle7 13 .i.g5 l1d7
14 11adl lLlc6 1 5 .i.e4 lLld4 1 6 �xb7 'ii'xb7
17 l:.d2 was a little bit better for White,
Kuczynski-Lau, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 1 .
1 3 'ikh3
13 'ii'e 2 .i.g7 14 a4 b4 1 5 lLlbt lLle7
(1 5 ... c4!? 16 .i.xc4 'ii'x e5 is another option)
1 6 lLld2 lLlf5 1 7 lLlc4 lLld4 1 8 'iVg4 0-0 1 9
.i.gS 11d5 was equal i n Garma-Miezis, Cal­
cutta 200 1 .
1 3 . . . ..tg7 1 4 ..tg5 li:Je7 1 5 ..tf6 0-0
1 6 'ikh4?
After this move White gets into a tangle.
I prefer the more direct t 6 lZJe4 and now:
a) 16 ... c4 17 lLlg5! h6 18 lLlxe6! fxe6 1 9
'ii'x e6+ 11 f7 20 .i.xg6 lLlxg6 21 i.xd8 lZJf8
22 .i.xc7 lLlxe6 23 .i.d6 is difficult to assess
but I think I prefer White's rook and pawns
to the two minor pieces.
b) Eliminating the knight is the best solu­
tion: 1 6 ... �xe4! 17 .i.xe4 l:.d4 and I think
this position is level.
1 6 . . J:td4! 1 7 f4 li:Jf5 1 8 ..txf5 exf5
Now White will have problems along the
long h l -aB diagonal. His next move only
compounds his worries.
1 9 ..te7? l:te8 20 ..td6 'ikc6 21 'ikg3
Now was not the time to realise that 21
11e2 loses to 2t ...l:txd6!.
21 . . J:txf4!
Simply winning a pawn. White's position
falls apart.
5 li:J c 3 'ik c 7
22 h3 l:td4 23 l:tad 1 l:txd 1 24 li:Jxd 1 l:te6
25 li:Jf2 c4 0-1
Game 60
Docx-Van der Linden
Belgian League 1 996
1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6
5 li:Jc3 'ikc7 6 g3 b5
Zeller makes a good case for the re­
strained fianchetto with 6 ... b6!? and if White
adopts the same strategy as against 6 ... b5,
then certainly Black is better off, for exam­
ple 7 .i.g2 .i.b7 8 0-0 d6 9 l::te 1 lZJd7 1 0
.i.g5 (there i s n o a2-a4 strike here)
10 ...lLlgf6 1 1 lLldS!? exdS 1 2 exd5+ and
now:
a) 1 2... lZJeS 13 f4 0-0-0!? 14 fxe5 dxe5 1 5
.i.xf6 gxf6 1 6 'ii'g4+ 'iti>b8 1 7 lZJc6+ ..txc6
1 8 dxc6 hS and White is just a little bit bet­
ter, An.Fernandes-Hodgson, Almada 1 988.
b) 12 ... 'iti>d8 1 3 lLlc6+ i.xc6 14 dxc6 lLlc5
and with the black b-pawn safe on b6 rather
than b4, this position is genuinely unclear,
although I still believe most players would
prefer to play White (compare with the note
to Black's 1 5th move) .
7 ..tg2 ..tb7 8 0-0 d6
After this move I suspect that Black is
really struggling to find a playable line, so
it's here that alternatives should be consid­
ered:
a) 8 ... lLlc6 9 net and now:
at) 9 ... ..te7 t o lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 1 1 lZJd5! d6
(l l ...exdS 12 exd5 'ii'd6 13 ..tf4 and d5-d6
wins) 12 'ii'g4 �f8 13 lLlxe7 lZJxe7 14 i.d2
with an advantage to White, Gipslis­
Vooremaa, Tallinn 1 98 1 .
a2) 9 . . .d 6 1 0 a4 lLlxd4 (1 0. . .b4 1 1 lZJdS!)
1 1 'ii'xd4 e5 1 2 lZJd5! 'ii'd7 (or 12 ... 'ii'xc2 1 3
ir'b6!) 1 3 'ii'b 6 ..txdS 1 4 cxd5 bxa4 1 5 l1c4
and Black will lose both his a-pawns, Vogt­
Gerusel, Leipzig 1 975.
b) 8...b4!? and now:
bl) 9 lLla4 lLlf6 1 0 l:.et d6 1 1 ..td2 lLlc6
12 c3 bxc3 1 3 ..txc3 was just a little better
149
Sicilian Kan
for White, Joppen-Eising, Bad Pyrmont
1 96 1 .
b2) 9 tt::ld 5!? i s obviously critical, al­
though I can find no examples of this
move: 9 ... exd5 10 exd5 i.c5 1 1 l:tet + Wf8
and clearly White has a lot going for him.
However, it would be premarure to say
Black is lost and he still has that extra piece!
c) 8 ... tt::l f6 9 :et b4 10 tt::ld 5!? (10 tt::la4
transposes to note 'b 1 ') 1 O ... exd5 1 1 exd5+
Wd8 (t t ...i.e7 loses to 1 2 l:txe7+! Wxe7 1 3
d6+) 12 ..ig5 'ii'b 6! 1 3 tt::l f5!? h6 and again
White has masses of compensation but
nothing deadly, Kallai-Bako, Hungary 1 980.
It's obvious, though, that it takes a very
brave player to take this on with the black
pieces.
d) One final idea for Black is 8 ... i.c5, in­
tending 9 tt::lb3 i.e7. Instead I prefer 9 i.e3
tt::le 7 10 a4!, intending to answer 10 ... b4?
with 1 1 tt::ld b5! axb5 12 tt::lxb5 'ii'c6 13 i.xc5
'ii'x c5 14 tt::ld 6+ and White wins.
9 .l:!.e 1
9 lt:lf6
. . .
Black has rwo main alternatives, but
nothing that promises a comfortable game:
a) 9 ... i.e7 and now:
at) 10 a4 (the easy option) 10 ... b4 1 1
tt::la2 tt::l f6 1 2 ..id2! (12 tt::lxb4 d5! is unclear)
1 2... a5 1 3 tt::lb 5 'ii'c 6 14 c3 bxc3 1 5 .ixc3
and White is better.
a2) 10 'ii'g4!? is more ambitious:
a21) 10 ... i.f6 1 1 e5!? (Yakovich)
1 50
1 1 ...dxe5 (or t t ...i.xe5 1 2 l:txe5!) 1 2
tt::ld xb5! axb5 1 3 tt::lxb5 'ii'b 6! (13. ..'ii'a 5 loses
to 14 tt::ld 6+ Wf8 1 5 b4) 14 i.xb7 l:ta5! 1 5
a4 l:txb5 1 6 axb5 'ii'xb7 1 7 c4 and White's
queenside pawns give him the advantage.
a22) 1 O .. h5? 1 1 'ii'xg7! (but not
.
Yakovich's 1 1 tt::lxe6? as Black has the un­
likely 'desperado' resource 1 1 ...'ii'x c3!)
t t ...i.f6 12 tt::lx e6! 'ii'e 7 13 i.g5!! and White
wins after 1 3 .. .fxe6 14 i.xf6 or 1 3 ...'ii'xe6 1 4
i.xf6 'ii'x f6 1 5 'ii'xf6 tt::lxf6 1 6 e5!.
a23) 1 0 ...g6 11 i.g5!? (angling for com­
plications) 1 1 ... h5 12 'ii'h4 and now:
a23 1) 12 ...e5 1 3 tt::ld 5! i.xd5 14 exd5 Wf8
(14 ... exd4 1 5 l:te2!) 1 5 tt::lc 6 tt::lxc6 1 6 dxc6
i.xg5 17 'ii'xg5 and White's strong c6-pawn
guarantees an advantage, Yakovich-Roeder,
Cappelle Ia Grande 1 995.
a232) 12 ... f6!? 13 i.e3! (13 i.d2 'ii'c4!)
1 3. .. g5 14 'ii'h 3 (14 tt::lxe6 is again met by
the hard-to-see 1 4... 'ii'xc3!) 14 ...g4 1 5 'ii'h4
'ii'd7 1 6 h3 b4 1 7 tt::lce2 f5 1 8 i.g5 and
Black's position is on the verge of collapse.
b) 9 ... tt::ld7 and now:
b 1) 1 0 i.g5 with a further split:
b 1 1) 1 o ... tt::lgf6 transposes to the text.
b 1 2) 10 ... h6? 1 1 tt::lx e6!.
b 1 3) 10 ...i.e7 1 1 i.xe7 tt::lxe7 1 2
tt::ld xb5!.
b 1 4) I can't find any examples of
10 ...tt::le 5!?. It all looks incredibly risky, but I
can't find a devastating response.
b2) 10 a4! b4 1 1 tt::la2! (1 1 tt::ld 5 is possi­
ble, of course, but 1 1 tt::la2 leads to a clear
advantage) 1 1 ...a5 (t t ...tt::lgf6 12 tt::lxb4 d5
1 3 tt::lx d5! looks good) 12 c3 bxc3 13 tt::lxc3
tt::lgf6 14 tt::lcb5 'ii'b 8 1 5 i.g5 and White was
better in Kupreichik-A.Petrosian, Lvov
1 988.
Plenry of different variations but the out­
come always seems to be the same. Black
either gets hit by some tt::ld 5 tactic or ends
up worse in a positional way.
1 0 .i.g5
10 a4! is probably even stronger as it cuts
down Black's options: 10 ... b4 1 1 tt::ld 5 exd5

1 2 exdS+ 'ito>d8 1 3 i.gS and now:
a) 1 3 ... liJbd7 transposes to the text.
b) 1 3 ... i.c8 14 i.xf6+ gxf6 1 5 'ii'h S .l:ta7
16 .l:te4 i.g7 17 .l:tae1 'ii'c S 18 'ii'e 2 i.d7 1 9
liJb3 'ii'b 6 20 a S 'ii'b S 21 'ii'e3 .l:tc7 22 'ii'f4
.l:te8 23 'ii'xd6 l:he4 24 nxe4 'ito>c8 25 i.ft
and White won, Quinones-Higashishiba,
Siegen 1 970.
c) 13 ... 'ii'c4 14 c3! (opening yet another
front) 14 ... b3 (falla-Votava, Lazne Boh­
danec 1 999) and now 1 5 'ii'h S! is crushing:
1 5 ... 'ii'c 7 16 'ii'h4 liJbd7 17 ltJc6+ 'ito>c8 1 8
i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 9 i.h3+ and White wins.
1 0 . . . liJbd7
Or 10 ... i.e7 1 1 i.xf6! gxf6 (1 1 ...i.xf6 1 2
ltJdxbS!) 1 2 'ii'h S and now 1 2. . .'ii'c 5 i s an­
swered by 1 3 ltJxe6!.
1 1 a4 b4
1 1 ...bxa4 12 liJdS! reaches very similar
variations.
1 2 liJdS! exd5 1 3 exd5 +
1 3 . . .'li'd8
More resilient is 13 ... ltJeS! 14 f4 and now:
a) 1 4 ... ltJxd5? 1 5 liJfS! 'it'cS+ 1 6 'ito>h1 f6
1 7 fxeS fxgS 1 8 exd6+ �d7 1 9 liJd4! 'iixd6
20 .l:te6 'ii'c S 21 .l:teS! (21 liJb3 also wins)
21 ...liJe3 22 l:!.xe3 i.xg2+ 23 'ito>xg2 'ii'd S+
24 liJf3! 'iix d1 25 :xd1 + �c7 26 ltJxg5 and
White has a winning endgame, Shabalov­
Benjamin, Las Vegas 1 993.
b) 1 4 ... liJfd7! (Benjamin) limits the dam­
age to just a clear plus for White!
1 4 liJc6 + ..txc6 1 5 dxc6 liJb6?
5 liJ c 3 �c 7
This loses easily. Black's last chance was
1 5 ... ltJcS although after 1 6 i.xf6+ gxf6 17
'ii'd4 i.e7 1 8 'iixb4 .l:te8 1 9 'ii'd 4 ltJe6 20
'ii'e4 aS 21 c3 .l:tb8 22 b4 (R.Byrne, Mednis)
White's queenside pawns should eventually
be decisive.
1 6 �d4 ..te7 1 7 l::!.xe7 ! <t;xe7 1 8 aS liJcB
1 9 l::!.e 1 + <t;ts
20 �xf6! h6 2 1 �dB + �xd8 22 ..txdB
f5 23 ..td5 h5 24 c7 l::!.a 7 25 �e6 .:taB
26 ..txf5 <j;f7 27 ..te6 + <t;g6 28 �d5
l::!.a 7 29 l::!.e4 h4 30 g4
30 .l:tg4+ �f5 3 1 .l:tgS mate is quicker!
30 . . . h3 31 l::!.e6 + <t;h7 32 �e4 + g6 33
l::!.x g6 l:!.fB 34 �f6 l:!.xf6 35 l::!.xf6 + <t;gS
36 ..tdS + <t;g7 37 l:tf7 + <t;g6 38 f4 b3
39 cxb3 'it>h6 40 <j;f2 1 -0
Game 6 1
Waitzkin-I. Gurevich
New York 1 994
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6
5 liJc3 �c7 6 g3 �b4
A much safer move than 6 ... b5. Black
can also play 6 ... liJf6 7 i.g2 i.b4 8 ltJde2,
reaching the same position.
7 liJde2
Or 7 i.d2 liJf6 8 i.g2 ltJc6 and now:
a) 9 ltJxc6 is not a particularly inspiring
move. Play continues 9 ...dxc6 1 0 0-0 0-0
and now:
a1) 1 1 f4 .l:td8 1 2 'ii'e2 bS 1 3 l:tad1 i.b7
151
Sicilian Ka n
1 4 a3 i.f8 1 5 e5 tLld5 1 6 tLle4 c5 1 7 c4 tLle7
1 8 tLld6 i.xg2 1 9 'ifxg2 tLlf5 20 tLlxf5 exf5
was a shade better for Black, Popovic­
Cvitan, Vrsac 1 987.
a2) 1 1 'ife2 e5 12 tLld5!? tLlxd5 13 exd5
i.xd2 14 'ifxd2 cxd5 1 5 'ifxd5 l:td8 16 'ifb3
l:tb8 was dull and level in Plaskett-Cvitan,
Geneva 1 988.
b) 9 tLlb3 i.e7 (now that the knight has
been driven back, the bishop heads back to
a more familiar square) 1 0 f4 d6 1 1 0-0 b5
12 a3 i.b7 13 Wh 1 0-0 14 g4 d5 and now:
b 1) 1 5 e5?! tLld7 1 6 g5 l:tfd8 1 7 tLle2 d4!
was good for Black in Peng Xiaornin­
Z.Almasi, FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas
1 999.
b2) Almasi gives 15 exd5 tLlxd5 16 tLlxd5
exd5 as unclear. Note that 1 7 i.xd5 would
be very greedy given the vulnerable white
king. 1 7 ...tLld4! looks like a good reply.
7 . . .tLlf6 8 .i.g2 i.e7
Once again, having displaced a knight
from the centre, the bishop returns to e7.
9 0-0 0-0
1 0 h3
The first step in an eventual pawn storm.
White does, however, have other ways of
treating the position:
a) 1 0 tLlf4 d6 1 1 g4 tLlc6 1 2 g5 tLld7 1 3
tLld3 b5 14 f4 b 4 1 5 tLle2 (Timman-Piket,
Amsterdam [4th match game] 1 995) and
Timman suggests 1 5 ... a5!?, intending ... i.a6.
b) 10 b3 d6 1 1 i.b2 tLlc6 12 h3 b5 1 3 a3
1 52
l:tb8 14 'ifd2 l:td8 1 5 tLlf4 i.d7 1 6 tLld 1
tLle5 1 7 tLld3 i.c6 was level in Kalegin­
Razuvaev, Elista 1 995.
10 . . .tLlc6 1 1 g4 d6 1 2 g5
White can also restrain Black's play on
the queenside with 1 2 a4, for example
12 ... l:tb8 13 g5 tLld7 14 f4 l:te8 1 5 f5 i.f8
and now:
a) 1 6 tLlf4 tLlde5 1 7 'ifh5 i.d7 1 8 i.e3 b5
19 axb5 axb5 20 Wh 1 b4 21 tLld1 l:ta8 was
unclear in Peng Xiaornin-Dizdarevic, Mos­
cow 1 994.
b) 16 b3? (this is too slow) 16 ... b5 1 7
axb5 axb5 1 8 i.b2 b 4 1 9 tLlb1 tLlce5 20
tLld4 tLlc5 and Black has taken over the
operation, Brinck Claussen-Emms, Copen­
hagen 1 995.
c) During the game I was concerned
about the variation 16 h4 b5 17 axb5 axb5
18 h5 b4 19 g6 as 19 ... bxc3 20 gxf7+ Wxf7
21 fxe6+ Wxe6 loses to 22 lLlf4+, but
19 ... tLlf6 seems to hold everything together.
1 2 . . . tLld7 1 3 tLlg3? !
I think it's too early to decide where this
knight should go. It may, after f2-f4-f5, find
the f4-square more accommodating. For
this reason, I believe White should first
push on with the f-pawn: 13 f4 b5 14 a3
.:tb8 1 5 f5 .:te8! (preparing ... i.f8) 16 Wh1
tLlce5 17 tLlf4 i.f8 18 tLlce2 tLlc5 19 tLlg3
b4 and Black has sufficient counterplay,
Browne-Enklaar, Amsterdam 1 972.
1 3 . . . b5 14 h4 1:1e8 1 5 h5
 5 ltl c 3 'ii c l

1 5 . . . g6! on the e4-pawn and, as 6 f4 doesn't develop

Now the knight on g3 has litde future. a piece, Black doesn't have to be worried
1 6 f4 b4 1 7 ltlce2 i.b7 1 8 b3?! about his development lagging.
The beginning of a faulty plan. 1 8 ..te3 is 7 ..id3 i.b7
stronger.
1 8 . . ..l:l.ac8 1 9 ..ib2? e5!
Suddenly the gS-pawn is a major weak­
ness. If this goes then White's whole posi­
tion can easily collapse.
20 ..ih3 exf4 21 ltlxf4 ltlce5! 22 hxg6
hxg6

23 ltlxg6! ?
White heads for complications, which in
the long run are good for Black. However,
normal play leads to a comfortable black
advantage, e.g. 23 ..txeS tt'lxeS 24 ..txc8
.l:txc8 25 tt'ldS .ixdS 26 exdS ..txgS 27 tt'le4
..te3+ (Gurevich) and Black is in control.
23 . . . fxg6 24 ..ie6 + <lo>h7 25 'iig4 ..ixg5!
25 ... tt'lxg4? 26 .l:t£7+ gives perpetual.
26 'ifh3 + ..ih6 27 lOtS gxf5 28 ..ixf5 +
'it>g7 29 'ifg4 + �h8 30 'ifh4 'ifc5 + 3 1
�h 1 'ife3 32 ..i c 1 ltlg6! 3 3 ..ib2 + �g8
34 ..ixg6 i.xe4 + 35 �h2 l:l.xc2 + 0- 1
8 'iff3
Supporting e4 and giving White the op­
tion of casding queenside. Alternatively:
a) 8 a3 tt'lf6 (8 ... tt'lc6 9 tt'lxc6 'ii'xc6 is a
reasonable line of the Taimanov, where
White's a2-a3 is not particularly critical) 9
'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 1 0 tt'lf3 b4 1 1 axb4 tt'lxb4 1 2 0-0
..te7 1 3 Wh1 0-0 was equal in Hector­
Agrest, Skelleftea 1 999.
b) 8 'ii'e 2 b4 (keeping a Kan flavour;
8 ... tt'lc6 9 tt'lxc6 'ii'xc6 would transpose into
a line of the Taimanov) 9 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 1 0 eS
tt'ldS 11 tt'l£2 tt'lc6 1 2 tt'lf3 ..te7 13 ..td2 d6
and Black was comfortable in Masserey­
Gavrikov, Biel 1 994.
c) 8 0-0?! walks into a pin with 8 ...-tcS!

Game 62
Tolnai-Sjoberg
Zalakaros 1992

1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6

5 ltlc3 'ifc7 6 f4 b5!
In my opinion this is a good move
against 6 f4. Black can apply early pressure

1 53
Sicilian Kan

and now: was 1n control, Tolnai-Eingorn, Vienna

c1) 9 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!f6 1 0 eS 'ii'c 6! 1 1 l:tf2 tt:'!g4! 1 99S.
12 tt:'!xc6 tt:'!xf2 13 'ii' f1 tt:'!xc6 and Black will 1 o . . .lL!a5!?
come out with a material advantage. Unleashing the b7-bishop and setting up
c2) 9 i.e3 'ii'b6 1 0 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!f6 1 1 eS tt:'!g4 a devilish trap. 1 0 ... b4 1 1 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!aS 1 2 g4
1 2 'ii'd2 tt:'!c6 1 3 c3 d6! 1 4 b4? (1 4 exd6 l:td8 dS 1 3 eS tt:'!d7 1 4 �b1 tt:'!c4 1 S i.c1 0-0-0
is more resolute although Black is still bet­ was unclear in Tolnai-J.Polgar, Hungarian
ter) 1 4... i.xd4 1 S i.xd4 tt:'!xd4 16 cxd4 dxeS Ch. 1 99 1 .
17 fxeS tt:'!xeS and Black has won a pawn, 1 1 g4?
Gardner-Stoutenborough, Ventura 1 971 . White must play 1 1 �bl!, intending to
8 . .lbf6 9 .tel lL!c6!
. meet 1 1 ...tt:'!c4 with 1 2 i.c l ! .
Black can reach a Scheveningen structure 1 1 . . .lL!c4! 1 2 g5?
with 9 ... d6 but in this instance I think it's Falling headlong into the trick but al­
worth keeping this option open. Black may ready White is clearly worse in any case: 1 2
have a use for that bishop on f8 (see move i.xc4 'ii'xc4 1 3 g S b4! and 1 2 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!xg4!
1 3!). are just two possibilities here.
1 0 0-0-0
Again White has an important choice:
a) 10 0-0 tt:'!aS! 1 1 �h 1 ?! (1 1 tt:'!b3 is
stronger) 1 1 ...tt:'!c4 12 i.cl i.cS 13 tt:'!de2
tt:'!d6! 14 a3 aS! and White's d-pawn came
under severe pressure in Martin Gonzalez­
Jansa, Biel 1 98S.
b) 10 tt:'!b3 dS! (10 ... d6 would transpose
into a line of the Scheveningen, but this is a
case of two squares are better than one) 1 1
exdS (1 1 eS d4 1 2 exf6 dxc3 1 3 0-0-0 cxb2+
14 �xb2 tt:'!b4 1 S 'ii' f2 gxf6 gave Black a
clear plus in Popov-Miladinovic, Korinthos
1 999) 1 1 ...tt:'!b4! 1 2 i.d4 tt:'!xd3+ 1 3 'ii'xd3 1 2 . . . lL!xb2 ! ! 1 l 'it>xb2 .tal + ! 1 4 Wb 1
tt:'!xdS 14 tt:'!xdS i.xdS 1 S 0-0 l:td8 and Or 1 4 �xa3 'ii'x c3+ 1 S tt:'!b3 i.c6
Black was slightly better in Duric-Cebalo, (threatening mate) 16 i.cS aS and White
Bjelovar 1 979. must give up his queen with 1 7 i.xbS 'ii'x f3.
c) 10 g4 (threatening g4-gS but ... ) 1 O ... hS! 14 . . .'i'xcl 1 5 .i.c1 .i.xc1 16 l:txc 1 lL!xe4
1 1 gS tt:'!g4 12 i.gl tt:'!xd4 13 i.xd4 eS 1 4 0-1
fxeS i.cS 1 S e 6 dxe6 1 6 i.xg7 l:tg8 1 7 i.f6 17 i.xe4 'ii'b4+ 18 'ii'b3 'ii'x b3+ 19 axb3
tt:'!xf6 1 8 gxf6 'ii'e S 1 9 0-0-0 i.d4 and Black i.xe4 simply leaves White two pawns down.

1 54
 5 0. c 3 � c 7

Summary
Out of all of White's six move alternatives, I can certainly recommend the main line with 6
..td3 to the aggressive white player. At the very least White gets good practical attacking
chances and in many lines White also maintains a theoretical edge. Adventurous black play­
ers would do well to digest Games 51 -53. These are rich in tactics and strategy and some
players feel very comfortable playing both sides of the board. For the more solid-minded
black player there is certainly nothing wrong with 6 ... 4Jc6 7 tt:'lxc6 dxc6 (Game 58), but
6 ... b5 against 6 ..td3 (and 6 g3) should carry with it some sort of health warning!
Other sixth moves for White are less likely to acquire a theoretical edge, but both 6 g3
and 6 ..te2 are good alternatives which may fit in naturally to a general repertoire against
various Sicilian defences.

1 e4 c5 2 0.f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0.xd4 a6 5 0.c3 �c7 6 .i.dJ (D)

6 f4 - Game 62
6 ..te2 - Game 59
6 g3
6 ... ..tb4 - Game 6 1 ; 6 ... b5 - Game 60
6 . . .0.f6
6 ... b5 Game 56
-

6 ... tt:'lc6 7 tt:'lxc6

7 ... dxc6 (D) - Game 58; 7 ... bxc6 - Game 57
7 0-0 .i.c5
7 ... d6 - Game 55
8 0.b3
8 ..te3 - Game 54
B . .i.e7 9 f4 d6 (D) 1 0 �fJ - Game 5 1
. .

1 0 'ii'e 2 - Game 52; 1 0 a4 - Game 53

6 ..td3 7. dxc 6
. .
9 . . . d6

1 55
 CHAPTER SEVEN I
5 ltJc3 b5 6 �d3 \'ib6 ! ?

1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 The idea is familiar but until a few years
5 lt:'lc3 b5 6 ..td3 'i'b6! ? ago it had not been seen in this form. Black
I n this chapter we deal with the very attacks the knight on d4 and hopes to force
modern line 5 lDc3 b5 6 i.d3 'ii'b 6!?. The it to an inferior square before deciding
move 6 ...'ii'b6 was not even mentioned in where to put the queen (usually she eventu­
the third edition of ECO in 1 997, but by the ally retreats to c7) .
time the fourth edition came out in 2002 it Other sixth moves for Black will be dis­
had been catapulted to one of the main cussed in Chapter 8.
lines. It has given Black a new lease of life 7 ..te3
in the early ... b5 lines and is played by hard­
ened Kan advocates such as Smirin and
Epishin.
1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6
5 lt:'lc3 b5
5 ...b5 is a more aggressive response to 5
lDc3 than the main alternative 5 ... 'ii'c 7 (see
Chapter 6). Black immediately gains space
on the queenside and indirectly pressurises
the e4-pawn (... b5-b4 will remove the main
defender). On the minus side, Black fails
(yet again!) to develop a piece and so he
must be very careful to avoid becoming too
far behind and getting blown away by an A natural move. White develops another
early attack. piece and defends the knight. However,
6 ..td3 there are some important alternatives:
The main response. White bolsters the l2Jd4-b3 has been the automatic reply to
e4-pawn and prepares to castle. ... 'ii'b6 and indeed 7 l2Jb3 has traditionally
Other moves will be discussed in Chap­ been White's most popular response (see
ter 8. Game 67), although in recent years it has
6 . . .'i'b6 faced stiffer competition from other ideas.

1 56

On first sight 7 l'Ll£3 (Game 68) makes a
strange impression. White often plays f2-f4
in the Kan and now the knight blocks this
pawn. However, White does have alterna­
tive plans and the knight controls some
important squares from £3. In particular, the
knight supports the advance e4-e5. This
advance liberates White's pieces and, if
timed correctly, can cause Black problems.
7 l'Llde2 is rarely played but it's certainly
not a bad move. There's no particular rea­
son why the knight is any worse off here
than, say, b3. The game Perez-Vilela, Ha­
vana 1 998 is one of only a handful of ex­
amples of this move: 7 ... l'Llc6 8 0-0 l'Llf6 9
�g5 b4!? 1 0 l'Llb1 �b7 1 1 l'Lld2 l'Lle5 12
l'Llg3 .:.c8 1 3 l'Ll£3 l'Llfg4 1 4 l'Llxe5 l'Llxe5 and
Black was certainly holding his own.
7 l'Llce2!? has even less practical experi­
ence, but again there is nothing obviously
wrong with this move. One point is that
7 ... i.c5 8 c3 e5?! can be rebuffed by 9 b4!,
when 9 ...�xd4 10 cxd4 exd4 1 1 0-0 gives
White good play for the pawn. Instead
7...�b7 8 0-0 l'Llf6 is logical. Then the con­
tinuation 9 e5 l'Llg4 10 �f4 d6 1 1 exd6
�xd6 looks okay for Black.
7 fl..c 5
. . .
The only really logical move. Black puts
further pressure on d4.
8 fl..e 2
The main response. A piece must retreat
if White wants to defend the d4-knight.
There are, however, more possibilities for
White on this move than you would at ftrSt
1magme.
8 'ii'g4!? (Game 66) is an incredible move
that was first tested by the American GM
Larry Christiansen in a few blitz games on
the net. He decided that it was no good and
wrote a very small article for the German
chess magazine Schach saying what a shame
it was that this beautiful line didn't work.
However, Joe Gallagher did some more
analysis and found that it was playable after
all. He unleashed it in a serious game and it
5 liJ c 3 b 5 6 il.. d 3 1i b 6 ! ?
was subsequently voted a s the best novelty
from Chess Informant 79. It seems ridiculous
that White can allow the knight on d4 to be
captured, especially as the bishop defends
g7 from the d4-square, but a deep tactical
sequence produces a very unclear position.
Also interesting is 8 e5!? �xd4 9 'ii'g4,
which transposes to 8 'ii'g4 �xd4 9 e5 but
without allowing 8 'ii'g4 l'Lle7.
There has been little practical experience
of 8 l'Llce2 and there remains some unan­
swered questions here. Logical for Black is
8 ...l'Llf6 and now White can play:
a) 9 h3?! (this is just too slow) 9 ...�b7 1 0
0-0 'ii'c 7 1 1 l'Llc3 d 6 1 2 a 3 l'Llbd7 was very
comfortable for Black in R.Anderson­
Goldin, Las Vegas 2001 .
b) 9 c3! l'Llg4 (9 ... 'ii'c7 looks reasonable)
10 �c l !? e5
and now:
b1) 1 1 0-0?! exd4 (1 1 . . .'ii' f6? 1 2 h3 h5 1 3
hxg4 hxg4 1 4 l'Llf5 g6 1 5 l'Llfg3 'ii'h4 1 6 .l:le1
was winning for White in Graf-Bellia,
Korinthos 2001) 1 2 cxd4 �e7 1 3 l'Llf4 d6
1 4 l'Lld5 'ii'd 8 doesn't give White enough for
the piece.
b2) 1 1 b4 �e7 (1 1 ...�£8 12 h3 l'Llf6 1 3
l'Ll £3 'ii'c 7 1 4 0-0 i.b7 1 5 .l:le1 d6 was un­
clear in Hagarova-Mrva, Slovakian Team
Ch. 2000) and here both 1 2 f3 exd4 1 3 fxg4
dxc3 and 1 2 h3 l'Llx£2 1 3 �x£2 exd4 1 4
l'Llxd4 �xb4 1 5 i.e3 could certainly d o with
some further investigation.
157
Sicilian Kan
8 . . tt:'lc6
. b22) 1 0 tt:'lxc6 �xe3 1 1 fxe3 dxc6 1 2
Continuing to add pressure to d4 is the
most popular continuation, but there are
two important alternatives:
a) 8... .i.b7 9 a4! and now:
at) 9 ... b4?! 1 0 aS! and tt:'la4 is good for
White.
a2) 9 ... tt:'lc6?! 10 aS 'ilia? (lO ... tt:'lxaS 1 1
.l:IxaS! 'ilixaS 1 2 tt:'lb3) 1 1 tt:'ldxbS! axbS 1 2
tt:'lxbS .i.xe3 1 3 tt:'lxa7 .i.xa7 1 4 c 3 when
White's queen and queenside pawns are
worth more than the three minor pieces,
Asrian-Belotti, European Ch. 200 1 .
a3) 9 ... tt:'lf6 with a further split:
a3 1) 10 axbS axbS 1 1 .l:Ixa8 .i.xa8 1 2
tt:'lJxbS .i.xe3 1 3 fxe3 0-0 1 4 'ilid3 tt:'lc6 l S
0-0 'ilicS 1 6 'ilid2 gave White a n edge in Van
den Doei-Chuchelov, Bad Zwesten 2000.
a32) 1 0 eS!? tt:'ldS 1 1 tt:'lxdS .i.xdS 1 2 tt:'lfS
.i.xe3 (12 ... .i.xg2 1 3 .i.xcS 'ilixcS 1 4 'ilid6!
'ilixd6 l S tt:'lxd6+ 'iii> fB 1 6 .l:Igl was better
for White in Magomedov-Dzhakaev, Russia
2000) 1 3 tt:'lxe3 .i.b7 14 axbS axbS l S .l:Ixa8
.i.xa8 16 'ilid3 tt:'lc6 1 7 'ilid6 'ilid4
(� 7 ... 'iliaS+ 1 8 c3 b4 19 tt:'lc4 'iliat + 20 .i.dt
bxc3 21 0-0 cxb2 22 .i.c2 [Magomedov]
leaves Black's kings stranded in the centre)
1 8 'ilia3 'ilia7 1 9 'ilixa7 tt:'lxa7 20 'iii>d2 <3;e7
21 f4 with an edge, Antal-Kustar, Budapest
2002.
b) 8 ... tt:'le7!? 9 a4 (critical; 9 0-0 tt:'lbc6 1 0
tt:'lxc6 tt:'lxc6 1 1 .i.xcS 'ilixcS gave Black a
comfortable position in Paramos Domin­
guez-Epishin, Linares 2001) and in this
posmon:
bl) 9 ... b4 10 aS! 'ilic7 1 1 tt:'la4 looks good
for White, for example 1 1 ...d6 1 2 tt:'lxcS
dxcS 1 3 tt:'lb3 tt:'ld7 14 tt:'ld2 .i.b7 l S tt:'lc4
0-0 16 f3 .l:Ifd8 1 7 'ilid6 'ilixd6 1 8 tt:'lxd6
.i.c6 19 'ifi>f2 with a pleasant ending, Stoja­
novski-Kocovski, Panormo 200 1 .
b2) 9. . .tt:'lbc6!? looks more testing:
b21) 1 0 aS tt:'lxaS 1 1 .l:IxaS (1 1 b4 .i.xb4
12 tt:'ldxbS 'ilic6 1 3 'i!id4 tt:'lc4!) 1 1 ...�xd4 1 2
.l:.xbS axbS 1 3 .i.xd4 gives White definite
compensation for the exchange.
1 58
axbS ( 1 2 'i!id4 'ilixd4 1 3 exd4 e S 1 4 dxeS
transposes to Game 64) 12 ... 0-0, when
White's dodgy kingside pawn strucrure gives
Black compensation for the pawn.
9 tt:'lxc6 dxc6
The main alternative runs 9 ... .i.xe3 1 0
fxe3 dxc6 1 1 'ilid4! 'ilixd4 1 2 exd4 eS! and
now White has a choice: 1 3 dxeS (Game 64)
and 1 3 dS (Game 6S).
9 .. .'i'xc6!? is a brand new idea from Ep­
ishin: 10 eS (10 .i.d4!?) 10 ... .i.xe3 1 1 fxe3
'ilic7 12 'i!id4 (1 2 'ilid6!?) 12 ... fS 13 exf6
tt:'lxf6 14 0-0 0-0 l S tt:'le4 'ilia7 worked out
okay for Black in Mortensen-Epishin, Co­
penhagen 2002 and I don't think we've seen
the last of this move.
1 0 .ltxc5
10 eS?! is too ambitious: 10 ... .i.xe3 1 1
fxe3 'ilixe3 1 2 'ilid6 tt:'le7 1 3 .l:IJt 'ilib6 1 4
�f3 .l:Ia7 (Svidler) and Black successfully
unravels.
10 . .'ifxc5
.
This position has already been reached
on quite a few occasions and is the subject
of Game 63 .
Game 63
Antoniewski-Berzinsh
Prerov 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6
5 tt:'lc3 b5 6 ..td3 'i'b6 7 ..te3 ..tcs 8

i..e2 'Dc6 9 'Dxc6 dxc6 1 0 i.. x c5 'ii'x c5
1 1 'ii'd 3
Preparing to casde queenside and also to
swing the queen to g3 in some lines. Rou­
tine play gives White nothing:
a) 1 1 f4 e5 1 2 'i'd3?! (12 f5 is equal)
1 2... exf4 1 3 g3 'i'e5! 1 4 0-0-0 i..e 6 and
Black's well-placed queen ensures an advan­
tage, Yermolinsky-Smirin, Philadelphia
1 998.
b) 11 0-0 lLif6 12 i..d 3 e5 13 a4 i..g4 14
'i'd2 0-0 15 l2Jd1 l:tfd8 16 'i'e3 lLid7 gave
Black absolutely no problems in Naby­
Kengis, Tanta City 2002.
1 1 . . .'Df6
The most accurate move order. The line
1 1 ...e5 1 2 0-0-0 i..e 6 1 3 'i'g3! is annoying
for Black. 1 3 ... g6 is answered by 14 lLid5!,
while White is also better after 1 3 ... 'it>f8 1 4
f4 exf4 1 5 'i'xf4 lLie7 1 6 l:thfl, Khalifman­
Gunawan, Bali 2000.
1 2 0-0-0
White can also play the immediate 12 f4
e5 and now:
a) 1 3 f5 i..b 7 1 4 0-0-0 'it>e7 1 5 g4 l:thd8
1 6 'i'f3 (Svidler-Kasimdzhanov, Wijk aan
Zee 1 999) and here Svidler gtves
16 ... l:txd 1 + 17 l:txd 1 l:td8 as equal.
b) 1 3 0-0-0 i..e 6! 14 'i'g3 and here Black
has a choice of rwo reasonable moves:
b1) 1 4...0-0 1 5 f5 i..c4 1 6 i..x c4 bxc4 1 7
l:the1 .l:tab8 and Black i s certainly not worse,
Fercec-Rotstein, Seefeld 200 1 .
5 l:D c 3 b 5 6 i.. d3 � b 6 ! ?
b2) 1 4. . .exf4 1 5 'ii'xg7 'it>e7 1 6 i.. f3 h 6 1 7
e 5 'ii'x e5 1 8 l:the 1 'iVf5 1 9 lLie4 l:tag8 20
lLid6 'ti'g6 21 'ii'xg6 fxg6 22 lLib7 'it>f7 with
an unclear endgame, Mulyar-Stripunsky,
Seatde 2002.
1 2 . . 0-0 1 3 f4 e5 14 f5
.
The stage is set for a race as both sides
will push their pawns on the side of the
opposing kings. Svidler originally assessed
this position as clearly better for White, but
recent games have cast doubt upon this
judgement.
1 4 . . . a5
14 ...l:ta7, preparing to swing the rook
over to d7, is another idea: 1 5 g4 l:td7 1 6
'ii' f3 l:tfd8 1 7 g 5 l:txd l + 1 8 lLixd1 ! (White
plans to use the other rook for attacking)
1 8 ... lLie8 1 9 lLif2 'ii'e7 20 l:tg1 c5 21 'ii'e3 c4
22 c3 and White's attack is more potent,
Balinov-M.Hoffmann, Budapest 1 999.
1 5 g4
15 i.. f3 i..a6 (15 ... a4 16 'ii'd6!) 16 l:the1
l:ta7 17 'ii'd6 'ii'x d6 18 l:txd6 l:tc8 19 g4 l:td7
20 l:ted1 l:txd6 21 l:txd6 'it>f8 was an equal
ending in Lauk-Kveinys, Puhajarve 200 1 .
1 5 . . . a 4 1 6 g5 'Dd7
1 7 a3
White can also play 17 l:td2, giving the
knight a retreat square on d l . Play continues
17 ... b4 1 8 lLid 1 i..a6 and now:
a) 19 'ii'x d7 i..xe2 20 l:txe2 (20 'it>b 1 ?
i.. f3 2 1 l:te1 a3 left White i n trouble in Peng
Xiaornin-Xu Jun, Udaipur 2000) 20...l:tfd8
1 59
Sicilia n Kan
21 'ilc7 (21 'ilb7? l:!.a7 22 l:td2 l:te8 wins for
Black) 2 1 . . .l:!.dc8 22 'ilb7 l:!.cb8 23 'ilc7 l:!.c8
with a draw by repetition.
b) 19 'ile3 b3 20 a3 'ilxe3 21 ttJxe3 ttJcS
22 i.d3 was equal in Blehm-Grycel,
Glogow 200 1 .
1 7 . . . b4! 1 8 axb4 'ii'xb4
It's become apparent that, as the position
opens up on the queenside, Black can create
threats more quickly than White. However,
if the position simplifies then Black's iso­
lated pawns on the quecnside could become
weak. It's logical, then, that White tries to
exchange queens.
1 9 'ifc4
Berzinsh gives the line 1 9 'ild6!? tlJcS 20
'fixeS a3 21 b3 ttJxb3+ 22 cxb3 'ilxb3 23
l:td2? a2 24 l:!.xa2 l:!.xa2 25 ttJxa2 'ilxa2 as
giving Black a clear advantage, but 23 �d2!
looks more critical to me: 23 ... a2 24 l:!.a 1
i.xfS! 25 l:!.hc t ! i.e6 26 'Ot>et is very un­
clear. With this in mind, Black should also
consider maintaining the initiative with
20 ... l:tb8!? 21 ttJa2 'ilb6.
1 9 . . .'ii'b 6 20 g6
20 ttJxa4? 'ile3+ 21 �b1 (21 .l:.d2 ttJcS!)
21 ... i.a6 22 'ii'c3 'ii'xe2 0-1 was the end of
Berzinsh-Gonzalez de Ia Torre, Villalba
2001 - 23 l:txd7 loses to 23 ...'ii'xe4.
20 . . . �c5! 21 gxf7 + 'it>hS 22 l::th e1 ?!
22 f6? loses to 22... i.e6!. However, 22
'ila2 ttJxe4 23 ttJxe4 'ile3+ 24 tiJd2 'ii'xe2
(Ribli) restricts Black to a small advantage.
1 60
22 . . . ..ia6 23 'ifa2
23 . . . �b3 + ! 24 cxb3?
24 �b1 ! limits the damage: 24 ... i.xe2 25
ttJxe2 ttJcS 26 tDc3 although Blark still has
a dangerous attack after 26 ... a3!.
24 . . . axb3 25 'ii'b 1 'ife3 + 26 l::td 2 l::ta dB
27 l::ted 1 ..ixe2 28 �xe2 h6!
Despite the missing piece, Black is win­
ning. White can hardly move and is close to
being in zugzwang.
29 'ifa 1 l::ta B 30 'ifb 1 l:txf7 31 �c3 l:td7
32 h3 .:tadB 33 �d5 cxd5 34 'ifd3 :taB
35 'iii>b 1 l:tda7! 0-1
Game 64
Haba-Polujahov
Swidnica 2000
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 a6
5 �c3 b5 6 ..id3 'ii'b 6 7 ..ie3 ..ic5 8
..ie2 �c6 9 �xc6 ..ixe3 1 0 fxe3 dxc6
10 ...'ilxc6 1 1 'ild4! is strong for White,
for example 1 1 ...f6 12 eS! 'ii'xg2 13 0-0-0
and White has a dangerous initiative.
1 1 'ifd4
Forcing Black to straighten out White's
pawn weaknesses.
1 1 . . .'ifxd4 1 2 exd4 e5!
Or else White will take control of the
dark squares with e4-e5.
1 3 dxe5 �e7
Simply preparing to recapture the pawn
with ... ttJg6xe5. White must play actively as

if Black is allowed to capture on eS without
a struggle then White, with an isolated pawn
on e4, could well stand worse.
1 4 a4
White can also play the immediate 1 4
i..h S with the idea of simply eliminating the
knight when it lands on g6. Play continues
1 4...lDg6 1 5 i..xg6 hxg6 16 0-0-0 and now:
a) 16 ... i..g4 17 .l:ld6 l:tc8 18 ltJd1 l:thS 19
lD£2 i..e 6 20 ltJd3 (Haba-Ruzele, Boe­
blingen 1 999) 20 ... a5 21 lDf4 l:txeS 22 lDxe6
l:txe6 23 l:txe6+ fxe6 is equal - Haba.
b) 16 ...l:th5 17 l:td6 l:txeS 18 l:thd 1 (18
.l:lxc6? allows Black to trap the rook with
1 8... 'itd7!, Galego-Hauchard, Mondariz 2000)
1 8 ... .ig4 again with equality, G.Shahade-
Waitzkin, New York 1 999.
1 4 . . .l:l.b8
14 ... b4 1 5 lDa2 aS 16 ltJc l ltJg6 17 ltJd3
looks a bit better for White.
1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 �h5
1 6 . . .li:Jg6
16 ... b4?! loosens Black's queenside.
White was better after 17 lDe2 l::tb S 1 8 .if3
l::tx eS 19 l:ta4 l:.bS 20 ltJd4 .l:lb6 21 'iti>£2 in
Timman-Sokolov, Amsterdam 1 999.
1 7 i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 l:l.a7
Or 1 8 0-0-0 b4 1 9 lDa4 l:thS 20 l:td6
l::txeS 21 l::th d1 i.g4 22 l::t 1 d4 cS 23 l:.c4
i..e 6 24 l:.xcS l:.xe4 25 b3 '12- 1/2 De Firmian­
Kengis, Bundesliga 1 999.
1 8 . . .l:th5 1 9 0-0 i.d7
19 ... ..ie6 has been criticised but I believe
5 li:J c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 'ii b 6! ?
that this also leads t o equality. Play contin­
ues 20 l::tc 7 and now:
a) 20... b4?! 21 lDe2 i..c4 (21 ...l:.xe5 22
ltJd4 i..d7 23 l::tx f7! 23 ... 'iti>xf7 24 lDxc6 l:te7
25 lDxb8 i.bS 26 l::tc S gave White a decisive
advantage in Mitkov-Bruzon, Lisbon 1 999)
22 l::te 1 l:txeS 23 ltJd4 and White went on to
win in Volokitin-Kveinys, Lausanne 2000.
b) 20 .. Jhe5! (why not?) 21 b4! (21 l::txc6
b4 is equal) 21 ...i..d7 22 l:ta1 l:tc8 23 l:tb7
cS! 24 lDxbS .ixbS 25 l::tx bS l::txe4 26 bxcS
l::tc7 and Black will continue with ...l::tc4.
20 .l:!.d1 .l:!.d8 21 b4 l:txe5 22 l:l.c7
22 . . .l:te6?
22 ... l::te 7 23 l:.a1 llc8 24 l::tb 7 i..e6 25
l:txe7+ 'iti>xe7 26 'iti>£2 cS is an equal position
according to Haba. After the text move
White is allowed to obtain a grip on the
position.
23 lti>f2 rt:ie7 24 rt:ie3 .l:!.d6 25 .l:!.a7 l:l.xd 1
26 li:Jxd 1 rt;d6 27 li:Jf2 i.e6 28 li:Jd3 .ic4
29 li:Jb2?
29 h4 l::th8 30 g3 (Haba) preserves some
advantage, for example 30 ... l::td 8 31 'iti>f4
i..xd3 32 cxd3 'iti>e6 33 'iti>e3.
29 . . . i.e6 30 rt;d4?
Again, White should play 30 lDd3 i..c4
31 h4!.
30 . . . c5 + ! 31 bxc5 + rt;c6 + 32 rt;e3
'iPxc5 33 l:ta6 b4 34 li:Jd3 + rt;b5 35 l:ta7
.l:td7 36 l:txd7 i.xd7 37 rt;d4 i.g4 38
li:Je5 i.e6 39 h4 i.a2 40 c3 bxc3 41
rt;xc3 rt;c5 % - %
161
Sicilian Kan
Game 65
Blehm-Gajewski
Polish Championship 200 1
1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6
5 lLlcJ b5 6 i.dJ 'ilfb6 7 .tel i.c5 8
i.e2 lLlc6 9 lLlxc6 i.xeJ 1 0 fxe3 dxc6
1 1 'ii'd4 'ilfxd4 1 2 exd4 e5 1 3 d5 lLle7
Or:
a) 1 3 . .. c5!? 14 a4 b4 1 5 lt:\d 1 lt:\f6 16 i.f3
aS 1 7 lt:\e3 i.a6 18 0-0-0 is given as slighdy
better for White by Cvetkovic. If Black
could blockade the dS-pawn with his knight
on d6 then it would be he who had the ad­
vantage, but this proves to be difficult to
achieve, for example 1 8 ... 'it>e7?! 1 9 g4! g6 20
d6+ �dB 21 gS ltJd7 22 i.g4 and Black is
in some trouble.
b) 1 3. .. i.b7 14 a4 b4 1 5 dxc6 i.xc6 1 6
ltJdS i.xdS 1 7 exdS 'it>e7 1 8 d6+! 'it>xd6 19
0-0-0+ 'it>c7 20 l:ldS lt:\e7 2 1 l:heS gave
White an edge in Svidler-Milov, Frankfurt
(rapid) 2000.
1 4 0-0-0
14 dxc6?! lt:\xc6 1 5 ltJdS 0-0 promises
White nothing.
1 4o o oi.d7
Alternatively:
a) 14 ... l:.a7?! 1 5 a4! (15 b4, as in the main
game, also looks strong) 1 5 ...b4 1 6 lt:\a2 aS
1 7 dxc6 lt:\xc6 1 8 i.bS l:lc7 1 9 l:.d5 i.e6 20
i.xc6+ l:lxc6 21 lhaS 0-0 22 lt:\xb4 and
1 62
White went on to Wln m Yu Shaoteng­
Ribshtein, Budapest 2000.
b) 14 ... cxd5 1 5 ltJxdS ltJxdS 1 6 l:.xd5 f6
1 7 l:.hd1 i.e6 1 8 l:.d6 'it>e7 1 9 a4 bxa4 20
i.xa6 l:thb8 was equal in Moosavian­
Khaghani, Tehran 2002, but 1 5 exdS! is
more consistent.
1 5 b4! .:a7?!
Given as dubious by Nataf, who offers
1 5 ... cxd5! as an improvement with the fol­
lowing line: 1 6 exdS ltJfS 1 7 d6! and now:
a) 1 7 ... l:.cB 1 8 lt:\e4 l:lc6 1 9 i.hS 0-0 20
lt:\cS with a clear plus for White, although in
this line 1 9 ... lt:\e3! 20 l:.d2 lt:\c4 looks like an
improvement for Black.
b) 17 ... lt:\e3 1 8 l:.d3 lt:\c4 1 9 l:.d5!.
c) 17 ... i.c6 1 8 l:the 1 ! .
d) 1 7. . .lt:\d4 1 8 l:the1 i s given a s only
slighdy better for White by Nataf. After
1 8 .. .'�d8 19 i.d3 f6 the position is still very
unclear. Is the pawn on d6 a strength or a
weakness?
1 6 .:d2
The earlier game Nataf-Koch, French
Ch. 2000 continued 16 'it>b2 cxdS?! (this
gives White's knight the e4-square) 17 exdS
fS? 18 a4! bxa4 19 lt:\a2 'it>f7 20 c4 and
White's queenside pawns promise a decisive
advantage.
1 6 0 0 00-0 1 7 'it>b2!
This position is difficult for Black as the
pawn on dS is causing some problems.
1 7 0 0 ocxd5 1 8 exd5 lLlc8 1 9 d6! ..tc6 20
 5 li:J c 3 b5 6 i. d3 il b 6 ! ?

lanica Zdroj 2000.

.l:[hd1 .l:!.d8 21 a4 bxa4 22 li:Jd5 f6 23 c4
23 . . . .1:!.xd6 24 i.g4 i.d7? 9 e5 .i.xe3! ?
This loses immediately. Black has more If Black wishes to avoid the following
chances of survival with 24... ..ixd5 although
complications then he can bail out into an
Ribli's 25 c5! ..ie6 26 cxd6 ..ixg4 27 d7 ending with 9...lt:Jc6 10 'ii'xg7 ..ixe5 1 1
l:.xd7 28 l:.xd7 ..ixd1 29 l:.xd1 gives White
'ii'x e5 lt:Jxe5 1 2 ..ixb6 ..ib7 and now:
good winning chances. a) 13 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 4 ..ixe4 d5 1 5 ..id3 (1 5
..id4 f6 transposes to note 'b') 1 5 ... lt:Je7
25 .i.xd7 .l:!.axd7 26 c5 .l:!.xd5 27 .l:!.xd5
.l:!.c7 28 .l:!.d7 1 -0 with a level position, Lanzani-Epishin,
r------...., Bratto 2000.
Game 66 b) 1 3 ..id4 f6! (13 ... lt:Jxd3+ 14 cxd3 f6 1 5
Antal-Szilagyi lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 6 dxe4 l:.c8 1 7 'ittd2 looks a
Budapest 200 1 touch better for White, Zufic-Titz, Szem-
._______________. gotthard 2001) 1 4 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 5 ..ixe4 d5
1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6 1 6 ..ixe5 fxe5 17 ..id3 e4 1 8 ..ie2 lt:Jf6 with
5 li:Jc3 b5 6 i.d3 fib6 7 i.e3 i.c5 8 an equal ending, Kotter-Kengis, Bundesliga
ikg4!? 2000.
1 0 ikxg7 i.xf2 + 1 1 'it<f 1
Milov assesses 1 1 'ittd 1 lt:Jc6 1 2 'ii'x h8
lt:Jce7 1 3 lt:Je4 ..ib7 1 4 lt:Jd6+ 'ittd 8 as clearly
better for Black.
1 1 . 0 .i.h4 1 2 g3
Or 12 lt:Je4 ..ib7 13 lt:Jd6+ 'ii'xd6 1 4
exd6 ..if6 (Milov) when I prefer Black's
three minor pieces to White's queen.

8 . . . i.xd4
Black can also decline the offer with
8 ... lt:Je7 and now:
a) 9 'ii'xg7 l:.g8 1 0 'ii' f6 l:.g6 1 1 'ii'h 8+
l:.g8 12 'ii' f6 is a draw by repetition.
b) 9 e5! ..ib7 (9 ... h5 10 'ii'h4 g5? [Heb­
den-Lalic, Lausanne 2001] 1 1 ..ixg5! ..ixd4
12 ..ixe7 ..ixe5 1 3 lt:Je4 and White is clearly
better) 1 0 0-0-0 (Milov gives the line 10 1 2 . . .fie3!
lt:Je4 ..ixe4 11 ..ixe4 ..ixd4, assessing the In the stem game White obtained a clear
position as unclear; 12 ..ixa8 ..ixe3 1 3 fxe3 plus after 12 ... ..ib7 1 3 'ii'x h8 ..ixh1 14
'ii'x e3+ 14 'iVe2 'ii'x e2+ 1 5 'ittxe2 lt:Jg6 is 'ii'xg8+ rl;e7 15 'ii'g4!, Gallagher-Milov, Bicl
one possible continuation) 10 ... h5 1 1 'ii'f4 2000.
lt:Jbc6 1 2 lt:Jxc6 ..txc6 1 3 ..ixc5 'ii'x c5 14 1 3 i.e4
lt:Je4 ..ixe4 15 ..txe4 l:.a7 1 6 l:.d3 and White Or 1 3 'ii'xh8 'ii' f3 + 14 'ittg1 and now:
was better in V.Belov-Anuszkiewicz, Po- a) 14 ... ..ib7 1 5 'ii'xg8+ 'itte 7 1 6 ..ie4

1 63
Sicilian Ka n
'iif'e 3+ 1 7 'it>g2 .ixe4+ 1 8 ll:lxe4 'iif'x e4+ 1 9
'it>h3 'iif'x e5 i s unclear - Milov.
b) 14 ... .id8 1 5 'iif'xg8+ 1;e7 1 6 h4 .ib7
1 7 'ilr'g5+ 'it>e8 1 8 'ilr'g8+ and White must
take the draw by perpetual check.
1 3 . . . d5 14 'ifxh8
Naturally 14 exd6?? loses to 14 ... .if6.
1 4 . . . dxe4!
Milov only gives 1 4 ... 'i�i'f8 1 5 .ixh7
'iif' f3 + 16 'it>gl .idS 17 'iif'xg8+ rlie7 18 h4,
which is winning for White.
1 5 'iix g8 + <l;e7
1 6 'Wtg2?
This move hands the advantage to Black.
I prefer 1 6 'ilr'g4! and now:
a) 1 6 ... .ig5? 1 7 ll:lxe4 h6 (or 17 ... .ib7 1 8
.l:!.e1 !) 1 8 h4 ll:ld7 (or 1 8 .. .f5 1 9 exf6+ .ixf6
20 ll:lxf6 'it>xf6 21 .l:!.h2! 'it>e7 22 .l:!.d 1 .id7
23 .l:!.£2 and with his king sandwiched be­
tween the white rooks, Black is unlikely to
survive) 1 9 hxg5 .ib7 20 l:te1 ll:lxe5 21
'iif'xe6+ ! fxe6 22 l%xe3 ll:lc4 23 'it>e2! ll:lxe3
24 rlixe3 .ixe4 25 'it>xe4 hxg5 26 'lt?e5 and
this ending looks very good for White.
b) 1 6...'iif'f3 + ! 17 'iif'x f3 exf3 1 8 gxh4 ll:ld7
and White's weak pawns give Black com­
pensation for the material deficit, for exam­
ple 19 .l:!.el .ib7 20 .l:!.g1 .l:!.c8 21 a3 .l:!.c4.
16 'iif'xc8 leads to a draw by perpetual af­
ter 1 6 ... .ixg3 1 7 hxg3 'if' f3 + 1 8 'it>g 1
'iif'xg3+ 1 9 'iii> fl 'iif' f3 +.
16 ... lLld7 17 Wg7
Or:
1 64
a) 1 7 gxh4 .ib7 1 8 'ilr'g5+ (18 'ilr'g3 .l:!.g8!
1 9 'ilr'xg8 'iif' f3 + 20 'it>g1 e3 wins for Black)
18 ... 'iif'xg5+ 1 9 hxg5 e3+ 20 rlig3 .ixh l 21
%:txh 1 l:tc8 gives Black the better ending, for
example 22 %:tel ll:lxe5 23 lhe3 ll:lc4!.
b) 17 %:thfl ll:lxe5 1 8 l%ae1 'iif'h6 19 gxh4
'iif'xh4 and Black will continue with ... .ib7.
1 7 . . .'iif 3 + ?!
17 ... b4! looks strong: 18 ll:la4 (18 .l:!.hfl
bxc3 19 'iif'x f7 + 'it>d8 20 gxh4 is very com­
plex but I prefer Black) 18 ... 'iif'g5 1 9 'iif'xh7
.ib7 20 llhfl ll:lxe5 21 l%f4 (21 'iif'xh4 e3+
22 'it>h3 l:th8!) 21 ....l:!.d8 22 'iif'xh4 .l:!.d2+ 23
'it>fl 'iif'xh4 24 gxh4 ll:lf3 and this should be
winning for Black.
1 8 <i;h3 b4 1 9 'ifxh 7
1 9 'lt?xh4! bxc3 20 l:.afl is stronger.
1 9 . . . ..tf6! 20 l:thf1 llJxe5! 21 l:txf3 llJxf3
22 lLlxe4 ..tb7 23 'iih 5 ..txe4 24 'iic 5 +
<i;e8
The smoke has cleared and Black has
three minor pieces fighting against a queen
and pawn. The position is still genuinely
unclear but Black's extra pieces prevail in
the end.
25 .l:l.d1 ..te7 26 'iic4 f5 27 g4 �f7 28
'iic 7 fxg4 + 29 <i;g3 ..td5 30 c4 bxc3
31 bxc3 .l:!.h8 32 c4 l:th3 + 33 <i;f2
.l:l.xh2 + 34 �e3 l:tc2 35 .l:!.h 1 .l:l.c3 + 36
<i;f2 lLlg5 37 'iff4 + 'iti>g6 38 cxd5 llf3 +
39 'ifxf3 gxf3 40 dxe6 �f5 41 llc1 <i;f4
42 �f1 lLle4 43 �g 1 <i;e5 44 llc6 Wd5
45 l:tc2 ..tc5 + 46 <i;h2 <l;xe6 47 a4 a5

48 l:l.b2 �d5 49 l:l.b7 f2 50 �g2 !iJg3
0-1
Game 67
Shmuter-Maryasin
Israeli Team Championship 1999
1 e4 c5 2 !iJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !iJxd4 a6
5 !iJc3 b5 6 i.d3 •b6 7 !iJb3 •c7
It makes sense not to delay this queen
move as otherwise White can exploit her
position on b6 with an early a2-a4(-aS), for
example 7 ... .ib7?! 8 a4! b4 9 aS! and White
will follow up with tt'la4, targeting the weak
b6-square.
8 0-0
Or:
a) 8 f4 (this often simply transposes to
the main line, but what happens if White
delays castling?) 8 ... -ib7 9 'ii'e2 and now:
a1) 9 ...tt'lf6 1 0 i.d2 i.e7 (1 0 ... d6!?) 1 1 eS!
tt'ldS 12 tt'le4 tt'lc6 13 c3 0-0 1 4 0-0 d6 1 S
exd6 .ixd6 1 6 tt'lxd6 'ii'xd6 1 7 l:lad1 l:lac8
18 'ii' f2 and \X'hite has an edge, Tiviakov­
Akesson, European Team Ch. 1 999.
a2) 9 ... d6 10 a4!? b4 11 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 12 tt'lf2
tt'lbd7 1 3 .id2 (1 3 aS!?, cementing a6 as a
weakness, should be considered) 1 3 ... aS 1 4
c 3 bxc3 1 S i.xc3 .ie7 with a n unclear posi­
tion, De Firmian-Akesson, Malmo 1 999.
b) 8 .igS i.b7 9 'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 10 .ih4 tt'lf6
1 1 .ig3 d6 1 2 0-0 .ie7 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 tt'lb1
0-0 was equal in Salov-Nijboer, Wijk aan
5 !iJ c 3 b 5 6 i.. d3 • b 6 ! ?
Zee 1 998.
c) 8 a4!? b4 9 tt'le2 i.b7 10 tt'led4 tt'lf6 1 1
'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 1 2 tt'lxc6 .ixc6 1 3 eS tt'lg8 1 4 0-0
tt'le7 1 S i.gS (1S i.xa6?! is answered by
1 S ... .ixg2!) 1 S ... tt'lg6 1 6 l:.fe1 .ib7 with a
level position, Svidler-Ehlvest, European
Team Ch. 1 997.
8 . . .!iJf6
8 ... .ib7 is probably more accurate than
8 ... tt'lf6 if Black is looking to play an early
... d7-d6 as it's more difficult for White to
arrange a dangerous e4-eS push - Black can
follow up with ... d7-d6 and ... tt'ld7 before
playing ... tt'lgf6. On the other hand, White
can still consider ideas with a2-a4.
a) 9 f4 d6 (or 9 ... tt'lf6 transposing to note 'b'
to Black's 9th move; 9 ... b4 10 tt'le2 tt'lf6
transposes to the main game) 10 'ii'e 2 tt'ld7
1 1 .id2 tt'lgf6 transpose into note 'e 1' to
Black's 9th move, but without allowing the
possibility of 1 1 eS.
b) 9 l:le1 .id6!? (9... d6 should be an­
swered by 10 a4) 10 'ii'h S tt'lf6 11 'ii'h4 tt'lc6
12 f4 .ie7 13 'ii'g3 tt'lb4 14 .ie3 0-0 1 S a3
tt'lxd3 16 cxd3 l:lac8 17 l:lacl 'ii'b 8 was
roughly level in Fressinet-Rotstein, France
2000.
c) 9 'ii'e 2!? d6?! (in general I think Black
should wait for f2-f4 before playing this
move; 9 ... b4 10 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 1 1 f4 transposes
to note 'e2' to Black's 9th move while
9 ...tt'lf6 transposes to note 'b2' to White's
9th move) 10 a4!? (this looks quite effective
here) 1 0... b4 1 1 tt'la2 tt'lf6 (1 t . ..tt'lc6 1 2 .id2
aS 1 3 c3 bxc3 14 tt'lxc3 tt'lf6 1 S tt'lbS looks
unpleasant for Black) 12 tt'lxb4!? (12 i.f4
tt'lc6 1 3 aS i.e7 14 c3 bxc3 1 S tt'lxc3 0-0
was unclear in Nijboer-Glek, Groningen
1997) 1 2... dS 13 eS tt'lfd7 (or 13 ... .ixb4 1 4
exf6 gxf6 1 S .ie3 and Black's king has no
safe place to hide) 14 .id2 tt'lxeS (14... 'ii'x eS
1S tt'laS!) 1S i.f4 .id6 16 l:lfe1 tt'lxd3
(16 ... tt'lf3+ 17 'ii'x f3 .ixf4 18 tt'lxdS i.xh2+
19 '1ti>h 1 leaves Black struggling to find a
good move) 1 7 .ixd6 'ii'x d6 1 8 tt'lxd3 tt'ld7
19 tt'laS and White has an edge according to
1 65
Sicilian Ka n
Bangiev.
An unprovoked 8 ... b4 looks a little pre­
mature: 9 lZ:\e2 l2Jf6 1 0 i.f4 i.d6 1 1 ..ixd6
'ii'xd6 12 l2Jg3 'ii'f4 1 3 a3! bxa3 14 l:txa3
l2Jc6 1 S 'ii'd 2 'ii'xd2 1 6 l2Jxd2 and Black will
have problems with his isolated a-pawn,
Stefansson-Atalik, Reykjavik 1 994.
9 f4
The most natural way forward, but White
does have other possibilities:
a) 9 l:te 1 ! ?
(trying to induce a n early ... d7-d6, which
will be met by a2-a4) 9 ...i.d6!? (9 ... d6 1 0 a4
b4 1 1 lZ:\a2 lZ:\c6 1 2 i.d2 'ii'b 8 1 3 aS i.e7 1 4
'ii'e 2 0-0 1 S ..if4 lZ:\eS 1 6 'ii'd2 l2Jxd3 1 7
'ii'xd3 i.d7 looks okay for Black, Mrugala­
Scho, correspondence 2000) 1 0 g3 b4
(lO... hS? 1 1 eS i.xeS 1 2 l:txeS 'ii'x eS 13 i.f4
traps the queen while 1 0... ..ib7? loses to 1 1
i.xbS; 1 O... i.eS is possible though) 1 1 lZ:\e2
l2Jc6 12 l2Jed4 l2Jxd4 1 3 l2Jxd4 hS!? (Smirin
assesses the position as equal after
1 3. .. i.b7) 1 4 i.fl h4 1 S i.g2 hxg3 1 6 hxg3
i.b7 and Black has good counterplay, Kas­
parov-Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 998.
b) 9 'ii'e 2 and now:
b1) 9 ...d6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lZ:\a2 lZ:\c6 1 2 i.d2
'ii'b 8 1 3 c3!? (1 3 aS!?) 1 3. .. bxc3 14 bxc3
lZ:\eS (14 ...'ii'x b3? 1 S l:tfb 1 'ii'xa4 16 l2Jb4!)
1 S i.c2 'iVc 7 1 6 f4 lZ:\c4 17 i.el i.e7 was
fine for Black, Siklosi-Pavasovic, Austrian
League 200 1 .
b2) 9. . .i.b7 1 0 i.gS!? (10 f4 transposes
1 66
to note 'e' to Black's 9th move) 1 0... b4 1 1
l2Jd1 ..id6 1 2 �h1 ..if4 1 3 i.xf4 'ii'x f4 1 4
f3 a S 1 S lZ:\e3 0-0 1 6 lZ:\c4 a4 1 7 lZ:\cS i.c6
1 8 eS lZ:\dS was equal in Jaracz-Kveinys,
Rowy 1 999.
c) 9 a3 i.b7 10 f4 transposes to note 'c'
to Black's 9th move.
9 b4
. . .
Displacing the white knight on c3 with­
out being provoked by a2-a4 is a common
theme in this line. With the d-pawn still on
d7, the b4-pawn has the support of the f8-
bishop. Black can put very early pressure on
e4 and the advance ... d7-dS is always in the
air. Other moves include:
a) 9 ... d6 (this looks risky but the resulting
positions are playable if Black reacts cor­
rectly) 10 eS!? (obviously White can con­
tinue more slowly with moves such as 10
'ii'e2, 10 'ii' f3 and 1 0 i.d2) 1 0 ... l2Jfd7!
(1 0...dxeS?! 11 fxeS 'ii'x eS? 12 'ii' f3 ! i.d6 1 3
g3 l:ta7 1 4 i.f4 i.cS+ 1 S 'it>g2 wins material
for White, while 1 0 ... b4 1 1 exf6 bxc3 1 2 fS!
eS 1 3 fxg7 i.xg7 1 4 i.e4 l2Jc6 1 S f6 i.f8 1 6
'ii' f3 ..ib7 1 7 'ii'xc3 was virtually winning for
White in Fiacan-Priehoda, Slovakian Team
Ch. 2000) 1 1 exd6 i.xd6 1 2 lZ:\e4 i.e7
and it's more difficult than it looks for
White to exploit his initiative. 1 3 a4 b4 1 4
..id2 lZ:\c6 1 5 'it> h 1 0-0 1 6 'ii'hS g 6 1 7 'ii'h6
l2Jf6 gave Black no problems in Sanz
Alonso-Magem Badals, Salamanca 1 998. 1 3
fS is more direct, but 1 3. . .exfS 1 4 l:txfS lZ:\e5

1 5 l:.fl tDbc6 also looks okay for Black.
b) 9 ... ..tb7 and now:
b 1) 1 0 eS b4 1 1 tDe2 transposes to 1 1 eS
in the main game.
b2) 10 'ii'f3 d6 1 1 i.d2 tiJbd7 12 �ael
g6! (1 2 ... i.e7 transposes to Game 5 1 , but
here Black can exploit the fact that the
bishop still remains on f8 to guarantee a
rock-solid kingside) 1 3 'ii'h 3 i.g7 14 t2Jd4
0-0 1 5 tiJf3 b4 1 6 tiJd 1 tDcS and I prefer
Black, Berzinsh-Movsesian, Czech League
1 999.
c) 10 a3 d6 1 1 'ii'e2 tiJbd7 12 i.d2 i.e?
transposes to Nagatz-Dautov (Game 52).
d) 10 i.e3 d6 1 1 eS!? dxeS 12 fxeS and
here Black must be careful:
d l ) 12 ... 'ii'x e5 13 i.f4 'ii'h S 14 tiJaS
(Chuchelov) gives White good compensa­
tion for the pawn.
d2) 1 2...tiJfd7? 13 �xf7!! 'ifr>xf7 14 'ii'h S+
'iir>g8 15 l:.fl g6 (l S ...tiJxeS 16 l:.xf8+! 'ifr>xf8
1 7 i.cS+ 'iir>g8 1 8 'ii'e 8 mate) 1 6 i.xg6
tDxeS 1 7 tDe4! i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 tDbc6
(Polzin-Chuchelov, Dresden 1 999) 19
tlJd4! tlJxd4 20 i.xd4 i.cS 21 'ii'g S+ 'ii'g7
22 'ii'xg7+ 'ifr>xg7 23 i.xcS �ad8 24 i.e?!
t2Jg4 25 i.xd8 �xd8 26 �el l:td2 27 i.d3
and White wins - Chuchelov.
d3) 12 ... tiJdS (the safest) 1 3 tDxdS i.xdS
1 4 i.f4 t2Jc6 1 5 'ii'h S tDb4 (Chuchelov)
gives Black good counterplay.
e) 1 0 'ii'e 2 and now:
e 1) 1 O... d6 with a further split:
5 tD c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 'il b 6 ! ?
e 1 1) 1 1 i.d2 tDbd7 1 2 l:tae 1 b4 1 3 tiJ d1
eS (13 ...i.e7 transposes to note 'a2' ro
White's 1 2th move in Game 52) 14 'iir>h t aS
1 5 tiJ£2 i.e7 1 6 t2Jg4 0-0 was equal in
Boudre-J .Ivanov, Toulon 1 999.
e12) 1 1 eS! dxeS (l l ...b4, l l ...tiJdS and
1 1 ...tiJfd7 all come into consideration) 1 2
fxeS tiJfd7 1 3 i.f4 b4 1 4 tDe4 tDxeS 1 5
'ifr>hl tiJbd7 1 6 tiJgS i.d6 1 7 tDxf7! with a
clear advantage to White, Kreiman-Dunn­
ington, Hampstead 1998.
e2) 10 ...b4 11 tiJd t aS (l l ...dS 12 exdS
tDxdS 13 fS eS 1 4 tDe3 tiJd7 1 5 tDxdS
i.xdS 16 i.e3 i.e? was unclear in Fressi­
net-Kengis, Germany 2001) 12 tiJf2 tDc6 1 3
i.e3 a 4 1 4 tiJd2 i.e? 1 5 t2Jg4 d 6 1 6 tDc4
0-0 17 tiJb6 �aS 18 tDc4 l:.aa8 19 tiJb6 �aS
20 tDc4 �aa8 21 tiJb6 'l2- 1l2 Fressinet­
Smirin, Saint Vincent 2000.
1 0 tDe2
10 tiJbt doesn't look particularly threat­
ening: for example 1 0... i.b7 1 1 'ii'e 2 i.e?
1 2 a3 aS 1 3 axb4 axb4 14 �xa8 i.xa8 1 5
tiJ1d2 tDc6 1 6 e S tiJdS and Black was very
solidly placed in Sorensen-Goldin, New
York 2000.
I can find no examples of 10 tDa4!? pre­
sumably because the knight is in grave dan­
ger of being trapped - but in fact the varia­
tions are not clear cut at all, for example:
a) 10 ... i.b7 1 1 eS tiJdS 12 a3 bxa3 13 c4.
b) 10 ... 'ii'c 6 1 1 eS ..tb7 1 2 �£2 'ii'xa4
(12...tiJdS 1 3 tDaS 'ii'xa4 14 t2Jxb7) 1 3 exf6
167
Sicilian Kan
gxf6 1 4 �e3.
In both cases the positions are unclear.
1 o . .i.. b 7 1 1 lt:lg3
. .
The major alternative here is 1 1 eS!? lLJdS
(t t ...it'c6 12 :f3 doesn't help Black) 1 2
lLig3 (12 lLibd4 �cS 1 3 Wh 1 lZ:Ic6 1 4 lZ:Ixc6
it'xc6 1 5 �e4 it'c7 was fine for Black in
Braylovsky-Smirin, Internet [blitz] 2000)
and now:
a) 1 2... it'b6+?! 1 3 Whl lLie3 14 �xe3 it'xe3
1 5 lLih5 with a clear plus (Svidler, Lukin).
b) 1 2... d6!? 1 3 fS!? exfS 14 lLixfS dxeS 1 5
it'g4 with compensation for the pawn.
c) 1 2...�e7 1 3 it'e2 1 3 ...g6 1 4 lZ:Ie4 lLic6
1 5 Wh1 aS 1 6 c4 bxc3 17 bxc3 fS (1 7 ... a4! is
stronger) 1 8 exf6 lLixf6 (Lukin-Khalifman,
Moscow 1 997) and here Svidler gives 1 9
lLixf6+ �xf6 20 fS with a n edge to White.
1 1 . . . h5!
A move very pleasing on the eye. Black
1 68
logically continues to gang up on e4 by
threatening to dislodge the knight with ... h5-
h4.
1 2 1i'e2
12 eS? gets White into trouble:
1 2...it'b6+ 1 3 Wht h4 t 4 lLif5 (14 :f3 hxg3
15 �e3 nxh2 + 16 Wg 1 :xg2 + 17 Wxg2
it'xe3 0-1 was the end of Koskela-Seeman,
Myyrmanni 1 999) 14 ... h3! (threatening
mate!) 1 5 lLie3 lLidS and White's position is
on the verge of collapse.
1 2 . . . h4 1 3 lLlh 1 a5!?
Preparing to harass the other knight with
... a5-a4. Black's 'pincer' movement in this
game IS unpress1ve.
1 4 lt:lf2 lt::Ja 6 1 5 .i.. e3
15 eS!? lLidS 16 :dt a4 17 lZ:Id4 lZ:Ic5 is
unclear according to Maryasin.
1 5 . . . a4 1 6 lt::Jd 4?!
Maryasin criticises this move, suggesting
instead 1 6 lZ:Id2!? lLJcS 17 :act aiming to
play c2-c3.
1 6 . . .lt::J c 5 1 7 e5 lt::Jd 5 1 8 lt::Je4 lt::Jxe4 1 9
.i.. xe4 lt::Jc 3! 20 bxc3 .i.. xe4 2 1 cxb4 h3
22 lt::Jb 5 1fc6 23 .i.. c 5?!
This allows White's kingside structure to
crumble. Better is 23 g3 although Black
keeps the advantage after 23 ... �xb4.
23 . . . .i..x c5 + 24 bxc5 'iix c5 + 25 .l:!.f2
.i..x g2 26 lt::Jd 6 + <li>f8
Black is a pawn ahead and has a safer
king. This adds up to a decisive advantage.
27 .l:.b1 .i..c 6 28 c4 .l:.h6 29 'itf1 'itg8 30

ikd3 lU8 3 1 �e2 f 6 3 2 ike3 ikxe3 + 3 3
'it>xe3 fxe5 34 fxe5 l:.xf2 35 'it>xf2 l:.h5
36 l:.e 1 l:.g5 37 l:e2 'it>h7 38 'it>e1 'it>g6
3 9 'it>d2 l:.g2 40 ltte3 �g5 0-1
r-------,.
Game 68
Grischuk-Smirin
FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000
1 e4 c5 2 CiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 CiJxd4 a6
5 CiJc3 b5 6 i.d3 ilb6 7 CiJf3
7 . . . CiJc6
Or:
a) Against 7 ... ..tb7?! I again like 8 a4! (for
8 0-0 see 6 ... ..tb7 7 0-0 'it'b6 8 lt::l f3 in Chap­
ter 8) 8 ... b4 9 aS, exploiting the queen's
position on b6. White keeps an advantage
after 9 ... 'it'c7 1 0 lt::la4 as 1 O ... 'it'xaS? 1 1 ..te3,
intending lt::lb 6, is very strong.
b) 7 ... 'it'c7 8 0-0 (8 eS?! lt::le 7! 9 0-0 lt::lg6
1 0 l:!.e1 ..tb7 1 1 ..txg6 hxg6 1 2 lt::le4 ..txe4
1 3 l:!.xe4 dS 1 4 llg4 lt::ld7 was slightly better
for Black in Hector-Movsesian, Malmo
1 999) and now:
b1) For 8 ... ..tb7 see 6 ... ..tb7 7 0-0 'i*'b6 8
lt::l f3 'it'c7 in Chapter 8.
b2) 8 ... d6 allows White to strike favoura­
bly on the queenside: 9 a4! b4 1 0 lt::la2 lt::lc6
1 1 ..td2 l:!.b8 1 2 c3 bxc3 1 3 ..txc3 lt::l f6 1 4
b4! ..te7 1 S 'i*'e2 'i*'b7 1 6 b S axbS 1 7 axbS
lt::ld8 18 lt::lb4 with a clear advantage, Po­
nomariov-Garcia Paolicchi, Istanbul Olym­
piad 2000.
5 CiJ c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 il b 6 ! ?
b3) 8. . .lt::lc 6 9 lle1 d 6 (9. . .lt::lge7? loses a
pawn to 10 ..txbS!) 10 a4 b4 1 1 lt::la2 lt::l f6
12 ..td2 aS 13 c3 bxc3 14 lt::l xc3 ..te7 1 S
tUbS 'i*'b8 16 ..tf4 eS 17 l:!.ct ..td7 18 ..tgs
0-0 19 ..tc4 lt::lb4 20 b3 and White is more
active, Ponomariov-Milov, Biel 2000.
8 o-o
Or 8 eS 'it'b8 9 ..tf4?! (9 0-0 transposes
to the note to White's 9th move) 9 ... fS!
(preventing lt::le4 and preparing ... lt::le7-g6;
now the e-pawn is in danger of eventually
being rounded up) 10 'i*'e2 lt::lge7 1 1 h3
lt::lb4 12 0-0 ..tb7 13 llfd1 lt::l xd3 14 'i*'xd3
'i*'c7 1 S a3 h6 16 lt::ld4 'i*'c4 1 7 'it'g3 gS 1 8
b 3 'i*'cS 1 9 ..tel ..tg7 20 f4 l:!.g8 and Black
had a big advantage in Ashley-Smirin, Los
Angeles 2000.
8 . . .ilb8 !?
The idea of this move is twofold. Firstly,
Black takes the sting out of a possible a2-a4,
... bS-b4, a4-aS sequence by vacating the b6-
square. Secondly, Black's queen once again
controls the important b8-h2 diagonal. The
queen chooses b8 as opposed to c7 as Black
wants to develop with ... lt::lge7 without al­
lowing a ..txbS tactic.
Other tries include:
a) 8 ... 'i*'c7 transposes to note 'b' to
Black's 7th move.
b) 8 ... lt::lge7 9 l:.c1 (9 a4!? b4 1 0 aS lt::lxaS
1 1 lt::la4 'i*'c7 12 ..tc3 [Adams] looks dan­
gerous: 12 ... l:!.b8 13 lUeS regains the pawn
with an advantage - 13 ... dS 14 lt::lxa6 ..txa6
1 69
Sicilian Ka n
l S i.xa6 dxe4 1 6 tt:Jd4 looks very dodgy for
Black) 9 ... tt:Jg6?! (9 ...'ii'b8 reaches the main
line) 1 0 lDdS! (1 0 a4? i.cS! t t i.e3 1f.xe3 1 2
.i:.xe3 b4 1 3 lZJdS 'ii'd 8 1 4 a S 0-0 l S tt:Jb6
.l:tb8 was unclear in Adams-Kengis, Euro­
pean Team Ch. 2001) 1 0 ... 'ii'b 7 (10 ... 'ii'b 8?
1 1 i.e3 and l O ... exdS? 1 1 exdS+ tt:Jce7 1 2
i.xg6 hxg6 1 3 d 6 [Adams] are both good
for White) 1 1 a4 and White's position must
be favourable.
c) 8 ... d6 9 a4 b4 10 aS! (again this idea
looks promising) t O...tt:JxaS 1 1 lDa4 'ii'c7 1 2
i.e3 .l:tb8 1 3 lDb6 .l:txb6 1 4 lhaS .l:tb8 t S
'iVa 1 tt:Jf6 1 6 i.xa6 i.xa6 ( 1 6. . .tt:Jxe4 1 7
i.a7!) 1 7 .l:txa6 i.e7 1 8 .l:ta7 .l:tb7 1 9 .l:ta8+
was better for White in Kuzmin-Rogovski,
Ordzhonikidze 2000.
9 .l:!.e 1
Also possible is the immediate 9 eS!?
gaining space in the centre and the e4-
square. Of course, the pawn on eS can be­
come vulnerable:
a) Grabbing the pawn with 9 ...tt:JxeS is
too risky: 1 0 lDxeS 'ifxeS 1 1 'ii' f3 dS
(t t ....l:ta7 12 i.f4 'ii' f6 13 'ii'e 3 and Black
has no defence against the twin threats of
'ii'xa7 and i.gS) 12 i.f4 'ii'f6 (12...'ii'd4 1 3
a4! b4 1 4 i.bS+! i.d7 t S i.xd7+ �xd7 1 6
l:tad 1 'ifa7 1 7 tt:JxdS and White crashes
through) 13 tt:JxdS exdS 14 l:tfe t + i.e6
(14 ... tt:Je7? t S 'ii'x dS 'ii'x f4 1 6 i.xbS+ axbS
17 'ii'c 6+ �d8 18 .l:tad t + mates) t S 'ii'x dS
.l:td8 1 6 'ii'c 6+ .l:td7 17 .l:tad 1 (threatening
1 70
i.xbS) 1 7 ... 'ii'd 8 1 8 'ii'xa6 and, with bS
dropping, it's unlikely that Black will sur­
vive .
b) 9 ... tt:Jge7 1 0 i.e4 (10 i.f4?! fS! 1 1 h4
tt:Jb4 12 i.h2 1i.b7 1 3 i.e2 lDbdS 14 lDd4?!
14 ... tt:Jxc3 t S bxc3 tt:JdS was much better
for Black in Shabalov-Smirin, Los Angeles
2000; for 1 0 .l:te1 see the note to White's
1 0th move) 10 ... Ji.b7 1 1 .l:tet 'ii'c 7!
(t t ...tt:Jg6?! 12 h4! i.cS 13 hS tt:Jge7 14 i.d3
tt:Jb4 l S tt:Je4 tt:Jxd3 1 6 'ii'xd3 i.xe4 1 7
'ii'xe4 h 6 1 8 b 4 i.b6 1 9 'ii'g4 was pleasant
for White, Ashley-Goldin, Connecticut
2001) 12 a3 fS!? 1 3 exf6 gxf6 14 tt:Jd4 tt:Jxd4
l S 'ii'xd4 i.g7 16 a4 and in this unclear
position the players agreed a draw, Baklan­
Smirin, Panormo 200 1 .
9 . . ltlge7
.
1 0 i.e3
10 eS is again possible: 1 0 ...lDg6 t t i.xg6
hxg6 1 2 i.f4 fS 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 tDe2 i.b7 l S
'ifd 2 it'c7 1 6 .l:tad 1 lDaS 1 7 b 3 .l:tc8
(17 ... 1i.xf3!?) 18 tt:Jed4 i.dS 1 9 .l:te3 'ii'b7
with a complex position in Simacek­
Antoniewski, Prerove 200 1 .
1 0 . . . d6
tO ...lDg6 is met by 1 1 tt:JdS!.
1 1 ii'd2 ltlg6 1 2 ltld4 ltlxd4 1 3 i.xd4
ltle5 1 4 f4 ltlc6 1 5 i.f2 1J..e7 1 6 ltld5!
This energetic move secures an advan­
tage for White.
1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 exd5 ltle5
Black correctly returns the piece. At-

tempts to hold on to the extra material fail:
a) 17 ... 4Jd8 1 8 l:.xe7+! 'i;xe7 1 9 :e1 +
1; [8 (or 1 9 ...'i;d7 20 .i.f5+ 'i;c7 2 1 'ili'a5+
'i;b7 22 'ili'b6 mate) 20 'ii'e3 tLle6 21 f5 and
Black is unlikely to survive.
b) 1 7 ... tLla7 1 8 l:.e3 .i.d7 1 9 :ae1 tLlc8
20 .i.h4! f6 21 'ili'e2 'ii'b 6 22 'i;h 1 'ii'd8 23
.i.xf6! gxf6 24 'ii'h 5+
and White has a winning attack, for ex­
ample 24 ... 1;f8 25 'ii'h 6+ 1;[7 26 .i.xh7
(threatening :g3) 26 ... i.g4 27 'Wg6+ 1;[8
5 l:iJc3 b5 6 i.. d3 � b 6 ! ?
2 8 'ii'xg4 :xh7 29 :g3 'i;e8 3 0 'ii'g 8+ 'i;d7
31 'ii'x h7.
1 8 fxe5 dxe5 1 9 �e2 0-0 20 i..d 4! exd4
21 �xe7 g6 22 �f6 i.. b 7 23 d6 i..d 5
24 �xd4?
24 i.e4! 'ii'b 7 25 .i.xd5 'ii'x d5 26 :ed1
looks very good for White. Now Black is
allowed back into the game.
24 . . .i..e6 25 .l:!.xe6!? fxe6 26 c4 bxc4 27
..txc4 h5 28 .l:!.c 1 .l:!.a7 29 ..txe6 + Wh7
30 h4 l:.b7 31 d7 l:.xb2 32 .i.h3 Yz- Yz
1 71
Sicilian Kan

Summary
Is the modern 6 .. .'ii'b6 here to stay? Early results have been very favourable for Black, who
scores a very impressive 56% on my Kan database. However, this figure can in some part be
explained by the tendency of strong players to play this sharp line in order to beat relatively
weak players.
In the early days of 6 .. .'ii'b6, white players almost exclusively played the 'robotic' 7 lt:lb3,
but more recently the values of 7 i.e3 and 7 lt:\f3 are being appreciated. I expect there to be
many more developments in these two lines, especially in the underrated 7 lt:\f3. At the
moment I would say that this move is White's best chance finding some advantage in this
line.

1 e4 c5 2 itJfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6 5 lLlcJ b5 6 i.dJ 'i'b6 7 i.eJ

7 lt:\b3 (D) - Game 67
7 ltJf3 - Game 68
7 i.c5 8 i.e2
. . .

8 'ii'g4!? (D) - Game 66

8 . lLlc6 9 ltJxc6 dxc6
. .

9 ... i.xe3 10 fxe3 dxc6 1 1 'ii'd 4 'ii'xd4 12 exd4 eS (D)

1 3 dxeS - Game 64
1 3 dS - Game 65
1 0 i.xc5 'i'xc5 - Game 63

7 lt:\b3 8 'ii'g4 1 2. . . e5

1 72
 CHAPTER EIGHT
5 tt:Jc3 b 5 : Sixth M ove
Alternatives
1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6
5 tt:'lc3 b5
Here we look at alternatives for White to
6 .id3 after 5 lDc3 bS, plus alternatives for
Black to 6 ...it'b6 after 6 .id3. We will also
look at earlier choices for Black.
1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6
5 tt:'lc3 b5
Black's other options at move five:
a) S ... d6 moves out of Kan territory as
Black signals his intentions of transposing
to the Scheveningen with 6 ...lDf6.
b) S ... .icS 6 .ie3 tt'b6 transposes to
S ...tt'b6 below.
c) 5 ... g6?! makes less sense against 5 lDc3
than it does against 5 .id3 as the knight on
d4 is still protected by the queen.
I
The amusmg miniature Hector-Vidar­
sson, Reykjavik 1 996 is not a good advert
for this system: 6 .ie3 .ig7 7 lDb3! lDe7?
(7 ... b5 should be played, although White is
still doing well after 8 .id4) 8 lDa4! lDbc6?
9 .tb6! 1 -0.
d) 5 ... tt'b6 has some similarities to 5 ... b5
6 .id3 tt'b6. After 6 lDb3 Black drops back
with 6 ... tt'c7 and follows up with typical
Kan developing moves. However, with the
knight on d4 not attacked, White has more
options. I like the move 6 a3!? with the fol­
lowing lines:
d 1) 6 ... lDc6 7 .ic3 .ic5 (7 ... tt'xb2?? loses
the queen to 8 lDa4!; this is one of the
points of a2-a3) 8 lDa4 it'a5+ 9 c3 .ixd4 1 0
.ixd4 lDxd4 1 1 tt'xd4 e 5 1 2 tt'b4 tt'xb4 1 3
axb4 and White has a pleasant ending due
to Black's vulnerable dark squares.
d2) 6 ... .ic5 7 .ie3 lDc6 transposes into
note 'd1'.
d3) 6 ... lDe7 7 .ie3 lDg6 8 h4 (Fritz likes
8 lDxe6! here: 8 ... tt'xe6 9 lDd5 .id6 10 lDb6
and White regains the material with interest)
8 ...tt'c7 9 h5 lDe5 1 0 f4 lDec6 1 1 lDb3 d6 1 2
tt'd2 lDd7 1 3 0-0-0 and White was better in
Short-] .Polgar, Novgorod 1 996.
6 i.d3
Alternatively:
a) 6 g3 is equally playable against 5 ...b5 as
1 73
Sicilian Kan
it is against S ...'ii'c 7. Play tends to be
sharper, though, as Black can achieve very
quick counterplay against the e4-pawn (sec
Game 71).
b) 6 i..e2 i..b7 7 i.. f3 'ii'c 7 8 0-0 l2Jc6
transposes to the note to White's 8th move
in Game 59.
c) 6 i..e3 i..b7 7 f3 signals White's inten­
tions of playing an 'English Attack'.
As we have seen before, this set-up is
generally not very effective against the Kan,
although with this particular move order it's
certainly playable. Here are two possible
responses for Black.
cl) 7..."ikc7 8 "ikd2 l2Jf6 9 g4 b4!? (9 ... h6
10 0-0-0 l2Jc6 transposes to a line of the
Tairnanov) 10 l2Jce2 dS! 1 1 gS l2Jfd7 1 2
exdS i..x dS 1 3 l2Jf4 l2Jb6 1 4 i..d 3 l2J8d7 1 5
lLJxdS lLJxdS 1 6 i..e4 l2J7b6 1 7 'ii'e 2 i..c S 1 8
i.. f2 0-0 and Black was fine i n Kharlov­
Totsky, St. Petersburg 1 998. As is common
in these lines, Black's ability to play ... d7-d5
in one go gives him an easy game.
c2) 7 ... l2Jc6 8 l2Jxc6 (8 'ii'd2 l2Jge7!? 9 g4
l2Jxd4 10 i..xd4 l2Jc6 1 1 i..e 3 lLJeS looked
okay for Black in Grabarska-Radziewicz,
Polish Girls Ch. 1 994) 8 ... i..x c6 9 'ii'd2 l2Jf6
1 0 0-0-0 'ii'c 7 1 1 <iii>b 1 i..e 7 1 2 g4 b4 1 3
l2Je2 d S 14 g5 l2Jd7 1 5 l2Jd4 dxe4 1 6 f4 i..b7
17 fS eS 1 8 l2Jb3 0-0-0 with an unclear posi­
tion in Lie-Yakovich, Bergen 2000.
d) 6 a3 is a surprisingly common move
(it's seen more often than 6 i..e 2 and 6 i..e 3
1 74
put together), but is quite harmless. Black
can use the 'extra' tempo to reach a com­
fortable position. One possible line runs
6 ... i..b7 7 i..d 3 'ii'b 6!? (or simply 7...'ii'c 7 8
0-0 l2Jf6) 8 i..e3 i..c S 9 l2Jce2 'ii'c 7 and
Black will attack e4 with ... l2Jf6.
c) 6 g4!? is extremely rare but is still
worth a mention. White plays as with 6 g3,
but with more space and a larger 'spike' on
the kingside. The line 6 ... i.b7 7 i..g2 b4 8
l2Jce2 sees another point of the 6 g4 - the
knight can come to g3 to defend e4. After
8 ... l2Jf6 9 l2Jg3 dS 1 0 eS we have the follow­
ing possibilities:
e1) 10 ...l2Jfd7 1 1 f4 i..c S 12 i..e3 'ii'b6 1 3
0-0 l2Jc6 1 4 c 3 bxc3 1 5 bxc3 lLJaS was un­
clear in Boudre-Gofshtein, St. Affrique
1 999.
e2) 10 ... l2Je4!? 11 'ii'e2 l2Jxg3 12 hxg3
l2Jc6 1 3 l2Jxc6 i..xc6 1 4 i..e3 i..b S 1 5 'ii'd2
.l:t.c8 16 i..d4 'ii'c7 and Black has reasonable
counterplay down the c-ftle, Coil-Dumont,
Sao Paulo 1 999.
6 i.b7
. . .
Originally this was Black's most popular
response to 6 i..d 3, but in the last few years
it has been taken over by 6 ..."ikb6. Other
moves include:
a) 6 ...d6 often transposes into lines dis­
cussed earlier, for example 7 0-0 l2Jf6 8 'ii'e 2
i..e 7 9 <iii>h 1 'ii'c7 10 f4 l2Jbd7 1 1 i..d2 i..b 7
and we have transposed to Pikula-Cvitan
(Game 55).
An independent try for White is 8 .l:t.e 1
i..e 7 9 a4!? b4 1 0 l2Ja2 'ii'b 6 1 1 c3 bxc3 1 2
l2Jxc3 0-0 1 3 i..c 2 i..d7 1 4 a S 'ii'b4 1 5 'ii'd2
l:tc8 which led to an equal position in Tatai­
Bologan, Reggio Emilia 1 996.
b) 6 ... i..c 5!? is very similar to 6 ... 'ii'b 6 and
often transposes, for example 7 i..e3 'ii'b 6
(sec Chapter 7). After 7 l2Jb3 Black must
decide whether to drop the bishop back to
a7 or e7, both leading to lines similar to
ones we've already discussed. I can't find
any examples of 7 l2Jf3 but this looks quite
playable too.
 5 Ci:J c 3 b 5 : Six th M o v e A lt e rn a tives
c) 6 ... li:Je7 intends to offer an exchange
of knights with either ... li:Jec6 or ... li:Jbc6.
White has the following choices:
c1) 7 f4!? li:Jbc6 8 li:Jf3 (it makes sense to
avoid the exchange since now Black's
knight on e7 will be forced to move again)
8 ... d5 9 eS b4 1 0 li:Ja4 ..td7 1 1 li:JcS li:JfS 1 2
li:Jxd7 'ir'xd7 1 3 ..txfS and I prefer White,
Reinderman-A.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1 993.
c2) 7 0-0 and here Black has two options:
c21) 7 ... li:Jec6 8 li:Jb3 d6 9 f4 ..te7 10
..td2 li:Jd7 11 'if'B (1 1 ifhS!?) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2
l:tael ifc7 1 3 ifh3 with good attacking
chances on the kingside.
c22) 7 ... li:Jbc6 8 li:Jb3!? li:Jg6 9 f4 ..te7 10
ifhS! (with no knight on f6, this is a threat­
ening place for the queen) 10 ... d6 1 1 ..te3
0-0 1 2 l:tf3 and White has an automatic
attack, Glauser-Polugaevsky, Havana 1966.
7 0-0
Now once again Black has a choice of
moves:
a) 7 ... li:Je7 again intends to offer an ex­
change of knights with ... li:Jc6 (see Game
70).
b) 7...li'b6 is a similar idea to 6 ... li'b6 and
is discussed in Game 69.
c) 7 ...'Wc7 transposes to Game 56.
d) 7 ... d6 and now:
d 1) 8 li'e2 li:Jf6 9 a4!? (9 f4 li:Jbd7 10
�h 1 'ir'c7 11 ..td2 ..te7 is your rypical set­
up - sec Game 55) 9 ... b4 10 li:Ja2 dS! 11 eS
li:Je4 12 c3 li:Jd7 13 ..tf4 bxc3 14 li:Jxc3
li:JdcS looks okay for Black, Vogt-Bonsch,
Cottbus 1983.
d2) 8 l:tc 1 !? li:Jf6 9 a4 b4 10 li:JdS!? cxdS
1 1 exdS+ �d7 12 c4 with a very unclear
position, but White obviously has a danger­
ous initiative for the piece, David-Lobron,
Amsterdam 1 996.
e) 7 ... li:Jc6 8 li:Jxc6 and now:
el) 8... dxc6 9 eS li:Je7 1 0 ifhS! 'ifc7 1 1
l:tel li:Jg6 (1 1 ...c5 1 2 ..txbS+! axbS 1 3 li:Jxb5
it'c6 14 li:Jd6+ �d8 1 5 li:Jxb7+ ifxb7 1 6
ifxf7 it'd7 1 7 ..tgS �c8 1 8 l:tad1 li:JdS 1 9
ifxd7+ �xd7 20 c 4 i s winning for White)
1 2 ..txg6 fxg6 13 'iVg4 'iVf7 14 li:Je4 'tW fS 1 5
'Wh4 c S 1 6 li:Jd6+ ..txd6 1 7 exd6 0-0 1 8
..tgS and the passed pawn o n d 6 gives
White the edge, Emms-Crouch, British
League 1 997.
e2) 8 .....txc6 9 'ifc2 ifb8!? (9 ...ifc7?! 1 0
a4 b4 1 1 li:JdS!) 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 li:JdS ..td6 12
h3 aS 1 3 ..te3 ..txdS 1 4 exdS li:Jf6 1 5 dxc6
fxe6 16 l:tad 1 0-0 17 ..td4 again with an
edge to White, A.Sokolov-Ionescu, Naujac
1 999.
Game 69
Svidler-Milov
Bie/ 2000
1 e4 c5 2 Ci:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Ci:Jxd4 a6
5 Ci:Jc3 b5 6 .td3 .tb7 7 0-0 'i!fb6
With the same motive as 6 ... 'i'b6, but the
insertion of 0-0 and ... i.b7 creates some
1 75
Sicilian Kan

important differences. 1 3 �b2

8 �e3
8 l2Jf3 'ii'c 7 9 .l:i.e1 i.c5 10 e5 f5! 1 1 exf6
lLlxf6 1 2 lLle4 i.xe4! 1 3 ..ixe4 lLlc6 was
equal in Adams-Topalov, Tilburg 1 998.
For 8 lLlb3 'ii'c 7 see the note to Black's
8th move in Game 67.
B . . .�c5

1 3 . . .tt'lc6?
Black can restrict White's advantage with
the variation 1 3 ... bxc4 1 4 .l:i.ct d5 1 5 exd5
..ixd5 16 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 17 'ir'c2 lLlbd7 1 8
'ii'xc4.
1 4 cxb5 axb5 ?! 1 5 tt'lc3 tt'ld4 1 6 ..txb5
0-0
9 tt'lce2!
9 ..ie2? doesn't work now: 9 ... lLlc6 1 0
lLlxc6 ..ixe3 1 1 lLle5 ..id4 1 2 lLlf3 ..ixc3 1 3
bxc3 ..ixe4 and Black was a clear pawn
ahead in Teuschler-Pilaj, Graz 1 999.
9 . . .tt'lf6
A natural move but this might already be
a mistake. After this White has a route to an
advantage. Alternatives are:
a) 9 ... lLlc6 10 c3 lLlf6 1 1 b4 i.xd4 1 2
lLlxd4 'ii'c7 (Rohde-Benjamin, Estes Park
1 987) 1 3 lLlxc6 ..ixc6 14 f3 0-0 (or 14 ... d5
1 5 exd5 lLlxd5 1 6 ..ic5!) 1 5 'ii'e 2 d5 1 6 ..ic5
dxe4 1 7 fxe4 l:tfd8 1 8 e5 (Svidler) and 1 7 �d3
White's bishops promise an edge. The smoke has cleared, leaving White
b) 9 ... 'ii'c 7 (this may be best) 1 0 i.xb5!? with many pluses: an extra pawn, two
(10 .l:i.ct is quieter) 10 ... ..ixe4 1 1 lLlc3 ..ib7 passed pawns on the queenside and two
12 ..id3 lLlf6 unclear - Svidler. bishops. This all adds up to a decisive lead.
1 0 b4! �xd4 1 7 . . .l:l.fd8 1 8 l:te 1 d5 1 9 exd5 �xd5 20
10 ... ..ixb4 1 1 lLlf5! ..ic5 12 lLlxg7+ 'Otf8 tt'lxd5 l:l.xd5 21 l:tc1 '*kb7 22 ..tc4 l:td7
13 ..ih6 'Otg8 1 4 lLlg3 is good for White. 23 a3 l:tadB 24 '*kd3 e4 25 '*ke3 h6 26
1 1 ..txd4 '*kc7 1 2 c4! e5 h3 l:td6 27 ..tf1 l:td5 28 l:tc4 tt'lf5 29
1 2... bxc4 13 .l:i.ct d5 1 4 exd5 exd5 1 5 .l:i.e1 '*kc 1 l:I.Bd6 30 ..txf6 J:l.xf6 31 l:tcxe4 '*kb6
lLlbd7 1 6 lLlg3+ 'Otf8 1 7 'ir'f3 (Svidler) gives 32 l:l.e5 tt'lg3 33 '*kcB + J:l.dB 34 '*kxdB +
White a strong attack. 1 -0

1 76
 5 !U c 3 b 5 : Six th Mo ve A lterna tives
Game 70
W. Watson-Mortensen
Heming 1 99 1
1 e4 c 5 2 !Uf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !Uxd4 a6
5 !Uc3 b5 6 i.d3 i.b7 7 0-0 !Ue7 8
i.g5!
A clever move to induce some sort of
weakness on Black's kingside.
8 . . . f6
This looks ugly but Black is struggling for
alternatives.
a) 8 ... "i!fc7? loses to 9 J.xb5!.
b) 8 ..."i!fb6?! 9 J.e3 is problematic for
Black as 9 ..."i!fc7 is again hit by 1 0 J.xb5!.
c) 8 ... h6 (this is better than the previous
two alternatives but still leaves a weakness
on the kingside) 9 J.e3 lt:Jec6 10 lLlxc6
lt:Jxc6 (1 O... dxc6 1 1 e5! looks good for
White) 1 1 f4 "ir'c7 1 2 e5 lLlb4 1 3 J.e4 with a
clear advantage according to Ciric.
9 i.e3 !Uec6 1 0 !Ub3!?
1 0 lt:Jxc6 also promises an edge:
1 0 ... lt:Jxc6 1 1 f4 i;_e7 1 2 ifh5+ ! g6 1 3 ifh6
'it>f7 1 4 l:tad 1 (Ciric) and Black's king will
find it difficult to find a safe haven.
1 O . . . !Ue5 1 1 f4 !Uxd3 1 2 cxd3 i.e7 1 3
'i!fh5 + ! g6 1 4 ii'h6
White has a clear advantage. He has a
lead in development and Black's king will
soon be the subject of an attack.
14 . . .'>t>f7 1 5 lUeS!
1 5 . . . i.xc5!
15 ..."i!fb6 16 f5! is very strong, for exam-
ple 1 6 ... i;_xc5 1 7 fxg6+ hxg6 (or 1 7 ... 'it>e8
1 8 g7! J.xe3+ 19 'it>h 1 l:tg8 20 ifxf6) 1 8
l:txf6+! 'it>xf6 1 9 ifxh8+ 'it>e7 20 d 4 i;_b4
21 J.g5+ 'it>d6 22 ife5+ 'it>c6 23 l:tcl and
White wins.
1 6 i.xc5 d6 1 7 i.e3 ii'f8 1 8 ii'h3 !Ud7
1 9 l:tae1 l:tc8 20 f5! gxf5 21 i.h6 'i!fe8
22 !Ud5! l:tg8
Black is forced to give up material as
22... exd5 loses after 23 exd5! lt:Je5 (or
23 ... "ir'g8 24 ifxf5 l:tc7 25 l:te3) 24 ifxf5
"ir'e7 25 ifh5+ 'it>g8 26 l:txe5 dxe5 27 l:tf3.
23 ii'h5 + l:tg6 24 exf5 i.xd5 25 i.f4
e5 26 fxg6 + hxg6 27 ii'h7 + '>t>e6 28
i.e3 f5 29 l:tc1 l:txc 1 30 l:txc 1 !Uf6 3 1
'i!t'g7 f4 3 2 i.f2 i.xa2 3 3 l:tc7 !Ud5 34
l:ta7 i.b1 35 d4 e4 36 l:txa6 e3 37
ii'e5 + '>t>d7 38 'i!fxd6 + 1 -0
Game 7 1
Thiei-Chuchelov
Munster 1 995
1 e4 c5 2 !Uf3 e6 3 !Uc3 a6 4 d4 cxd4
5 !Uxd4 b5 6 g3 i.b7 7 i.g2 b4
see following diagram
Black can play this move now or later
and usually the positions transpose, but
there are a few subtle differences.
The main alternative is 7 ... lt:Jf6 and now:
1 77
Sicilian Kan
a) 8 �gS �e7 9 0-0 b4 10 lLia4 - see
note 'b' to White's 9th move.
b) 8 'il'e2 b4 9 lL\a4 'WaS - see note 'a' to
White's 9th move.
c) 8 a3 dissuades Black from playing
... b5-b4 but the extra tempo for develop­
ment gives Black a chance to consolidate:
8 ... 'il'c7 9 0-0 lLic6 looks comfortable for
Black.
d) 8 0-0 and now:
d1) 8 ... d6 9 .:.e1 lLibd7 1 0 �gS 'ir'c7
transposes to Game 60.
d2) 8 ... b4 9 ltJdS?! (9 lLia4 leads to the
main game) 9 ... exd5 1 0 exdS �cS! 1 1 .:el +
'it> f8 1 2 lLif5 d 6 1 3 � f4 i.c8! 1 4 lLid4 'ir'b6
1 5 lLic6 (Shabalov-Smirin, New York 1 998)
and here 1 5 ... �b7 1 6 'ir'f3 lLibd7 (Smirin)
leaves White with insufficient compensation
for the piece.
7 ... 'il'c7 transposes to Game 60.
8 lt:'la4
8 lLib1 is harmless: 8 ... lLif6 9 lLid2 'il'c7
10 0-0 lLic6 1 1 lLixc6 �xc6 12 a3 bxa3 1 3
b3 d S gave Black a comfortable equality in
Nataf-Emms, Paris 1 994.
8 lLice2!? is interesting: 8 ... lLif6 9 0-0! (9
'il'd3 looks cumbersome: 9 ... d6 10 0-0
lLibd7 1 1 f3 :r.c8 12 c3 dS 1 3 exdS lLixdS
and Black was already a bit better in Tok­
mina-Lastin, Rovno 2000) 9 ... �xe4 1 0
�xe4 lLixe4 1 1 lLif4 �cS 1 2 .:e1 and now:
a) 1 2... d5 1 3 l:.xe4 dxe4 1 4 lLifxe6 fxe6
1 5 ifhS+ g6 16 ifxcS lLid7 17 ifxb4 (Su-
1 78
(Sutovsky) gives White good compensation
for the small material deficit.
b) 1 2... lLif6 13 �e3 (Sutovsky-Har Zvi,
Israel 1 998) and here Sutovsky suggests
13 ... i.xd4!? 14 i.xd4 0-0! 1 5 �cS :r.e8 1 6
i.xb4 dS. Black will follow up with . . .lLic6
and obtain a comfortable position.
8 . . . lt:'lf6
Directly hitting the e-pawn before White
has a chance to prepare e4-e5. This is cer­
tainly Black's most logical move. However,
8 ... 'ii'a 5, attacking a4, is also interesting:
a) 9 b3 lLif6 1 0 'ii'e2 transposes to note
'a' to White's 9th move.
b) 9 c4 bxc3 1 0 lLixc3 lLif6 1 1 0-0 lLic6
12 lLib3 'il'c7 13 i.f4 d6 1 4 .:c1 was good
for White in the game Plaskett-Berty, Scot­
land 1 998, but 9 ... lLif6 looks stronger. After
1 0 0-0 i.xe4 1 1 �xe4 lLixe4 White still has
to justify being a pawn down.
c) 9 c3 lLif6 10 0-0 and now Black has
two ways to capture on e4:
c1) 10 ... lLixe4?! 1 1 cxb4 i.xb4 12 �e3
0-0 1 3 .:c1 fS 1 4 lLie2 �c6 1 5 lLib6 lLid2 1 6
�xc6 lLixc6 1 7 lLixa8 .:xa8 1 8 �xd2 �xd2
19 .:c2 gave White a clear advantage in
Hebden-Stepak, London 1 99 1 .
c2) 1 0. . .�xe4 1 1 �xe4 lLixe4 1 2 cxb4
�xb4 (12...'ii'xb4?! 1 3 i.e3 i.e7 14 lLifS!!
exfS 1 5 lLib6 was good for White in Sutov­
sky-Agrest, Harplinge 1 998) 13 a3 �e7 1 4
b 4 'ii'd 8 and I would prefer Black's extra
pawn to White's pressure.
 5 ltJ c 3 b 5 : Six th M o v e A l terna tives
9 0-0
The sharpest try. White offers the e4-
pawn and hopes to cash in on his develop­
ment advantage. If White wants to keep his
pawn, there are two main ways of defending
e4:
a) 9 ii'e2 ii'a5! 10 b3 ttJc6 1 1 i.b2 (1 1
i.e3 ttJxd4 comes to the same thing)
1 1 ...ltJxd4 1 2 i.xd4 e5!? (12 ... ii'b5 1 3 ii'd3
i.e7 14 0-0 e5! 1 5 i.e3 d5 1 6 exd5 i.xd5
also looks fine for Black, Hellers-Kengis,
Aarhus 1 997) 1 3 i.b6 'ir'bS 14 'ifd3 i.e7 1 5
0-0 .l:.c8 1 6 .l:.acl 0-0 and Black has no
cause here to complain about his position,
Balashov-Chuchelov, Germany 200 1 .
b) 9 i.g5 i.e7 1 0 0-0 'it'a5! 1 1 i..x f6
i.xf6 1 2 c3! (1 2 tiJb3? ii'xa4! 13 ttJc5 ii'c6
14 ttJxb7 i.e5! 1 5 ttJd6+ 'ifxd6 1 6 'ifxd6
i.xd6 1 7 e5 i.xe5 1 8 i.xa8 i.xb2 1 9 .l:.ab 1
i.c3 gave Black a very pleasant ending in
Bistric-Sax, Sarajevo 1 982) 1 2... ttJc6 1 3 cxb4
ii'xb4 14 ttJe2 .l:.d8 (Kobalija) and Black is
certainly no worse here.
9 i.xe4
. . .
This looks the most logical way of grab­
bing the e-pawn. 9 ... ttJxe4 is less logical as
Black has entered a self-pin along the long
diagonal. Play continues 1 0 l:te1 d5 1 1
ttJxe6! fxe6 1 2 ii'h5+ and now:
a) 1 2 .. .'iitd7 1 3 i.xe4 dxe4 1 4 .l:.d 1 + i.d5
1 5 c4! (Plaskett; 15 .l:.xd5+?! exd5 1 6
ii'xd5+ 'it>c8 1 7 ii'xa8 ii'dl + 1 8 'it>g2 'if£3+
is a perpetual check) 15 ...bxc3 16 ttJxc3
'it>c6 17 i.e3 and it's difficult to believe that
the black king will survive the onslaught of
the white pieces.
b) 12 ... g6 13 'ife5 'ifd7! (the only move;
13 ... 'iff6? 14 .l:.xe4 'ifxe5 1 5 l:txe5 'it>f7 1 6
i..h 3 i s good for White a s 1 6. . .i.c8? loses to
1 7 tiJb6, while 1 3. .. tiJf6? runs into 1 4
'ifxe6+ ii'e7 1 5 Ji..g5) 1 4 ii'xh8 'ifxa4 1 5 £3
ttJc5 (Kupreichik-Gdanski, Leningrad 1 989)
1 6 ii'xh7 'ifd7 (or 1 6 ...'ifxc2 17 i.h3!) 1 7
ii'xg6 + ii' f7 1 8 'ir'g4 (Plaskett) and White is
better.
1 0 i.xe4 ltJxe4 1 1 .ll e 1 d5
If Black doesn't want to settle for a
drawish ending then he could try the more
ambitious 1 1 ...tiJf6!? but this also carries far
more risk. 1 2 'it'£3 d5 1 3 i.g5 and now we
have:
a) 1 3 . . . i..e7 14 ttJf5 exf5 1 5 i..x f6 gxf6 1 6
.l:.ad1 .l:.a7 1 7 'ir'xf5 'it>f8 1 8 .l:.xd5, Thiel­
Sax, Senden 1 998.
b) 13 ... ttJbd7 1 4 c4 bxc3 15 ttJxc3 i..c 5
(15 ... i..b4 16 ttJxd5! i.xe1 17 l:he1 with
ideas of ttJc6 and ttJf5) 1 6 .l:.xe6+! fxe6 1 7
ttJxe6, Thiel-Nijboer, Germany 1 999.
In both cases it's difficult to come to any
major conclusions but it's clear that Black
faces a fierce attack before having a chance
to utilise his extra material.
1 2 ltJxe6!
The only way forward. I don't believe
White has enough compensation after either
12 c4 bxc3 1 3 bxc3 i.d6 or 12 ii'£3 ttJd7.
1 2 fxe6 1 3 'iVh5 + g6
. . .
13 ... 'it>d7 virtually loses by force: 1 4
.l:.xe4! dxe4 1 5 i.. f4 'it>c8 1 6 .l:.d1 ttJd7 1 7
ii'e2 'ifa5 1 8 ii'c4+ ( 1 8 ii'xe4 also wins)
1 8 ... 'it>d8 1 9 'ifc6 .l:.a7 20 ttJb6 1 -0 Plaskett­
Volzhin, England 1 998. After 20... 'ifb5
White wins with 21 i..g5+ .
1 4 'iVe5 'iVf6!
The best move. 14 ... 'ir'd7 1 5 ttJb6 i.g7
1 6 ttJxd7 i.xe5 1 7 ttJxe5 is a superior ver­
sion of the game for White, while 1 4 ... .l:.g8??
loses to 1 5 'ifxe6+.
1 5 .llxe4 'iVxe5 16 l:txe5 �f7
1 79
Sicilia n Kan
17 l:eJ!
I believe that it's White who has to play
accurately here to equalise. The rook is well
placed on the third rank, where it can some­
times harass the black king.
1 7 l:.e2?! ttJd7! 1 8 ..te3 ..tg7 1 9 .l:ld 1
l:.hc8 20 l:f.d3?! aS! is an example of what
1 80
can happen if White plays too casually.
Black will double rooks on the c-ftle and
White's c2-pawn will be a major weakness,
Brynell-C.Hansen, Reykjavik 2000.
1 7 . . .a 5
Supporting the b4-pawn and preparing to
defend the e6-pawn with ... l:.a6. Another
continuation is 17 ... lbd7 18 l:tf3+ �g7 19
b3! l:.c8 20 ..tb2+ eS 21 l:td3 d4 22 f4 l:hc2
23 fxeS tt::lc S 24 tt::lx cS .ixcS 25 .ixd4 l:.d8
26 l:tad1 l:hd4 27 l:.xd4 l:.xa2 28 �h1
i.xd4 29 .l:lxd4 with a drawn endgame,
Barczay-Korpics, Hungarian League 1 996.
1 8 l:fJ + �eB 1 9 .i.f4 ltJd7 20 .l:!.e 1 l:!.a6
21 .l:!.fel
Setting up a draw by repetition. It's in
White's interests to do this because, as we
have seen, if Black consolidates then the c2-
pawn could prove to be weak.
21 . . .�f7 22 llfl �eB 23 .l:!.fel �f7 Yz - Yz
 5 liJ c 3 b 5 : Six th Mo v e A l terna tives

Summary
Currently 6 .. i.b7 remains out of fashion and I believe this will not change except maybe
.

with the offshoot 6 ...i.b7 7 0-0 'ii'b 6. White's play in Game 70 casts a big shadow over
black ideas involving .Jfje7.
6 g3 continues to be popular, if nothing else because the position can arise from other
move orders (1 e4 cS 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 lt:'lc3 a6 4 g3 bS 5 d4 cxd4 6 lt:'lxd4 is one example) . It will
be interesting to see if White can come up with any improvements over Thiel-Chuchelov
(Game 71), which looks theoretically fine for Black at the moment.

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6 5 liJc3 b5 (D) 6 ..td3

6 g3 (D) Game 71
-

6 . . . ..tb7 7 0-0 Wb6 - Game 69

...7 lt:'le7 (D) - Game 70

5. . . b5 6 g3 7 . . . ltJe 7

181
 CHAPTER NINE
5 c4
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6
5 c4
In this chapter we will be dealing with 5
c4. With this move White shows that he is
not concerned about keeping his options
open and immediately sets up the Maroczy
Bind. However, 5 c4 has never been any­
where near as popular as 5 i.d3, the main
reason for this being that Black has some
important alternatives to simply accepting
the hedgehog structure with ... d7-d6. We
will be dealing with these possibilities here.
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6
5 c4
Here's a summary of White's other fifth
move possibilities:
a) 5 i.e2!? l2Jf6 6 l2Jc3 .tb4!? (6 ... "fic7,
transposing to the note to Black's 6th move
in Game 59, is the safest course for Black) 7
0-0 .txc3 8 bxc3 l2Jxe4 9 "fid3 (9 .td3 l2Jf6
1 0 :e1 0-0 1 1 .tgS h6 1 2 .th4 l2Jc6 1 3 "fif3
dS was unclear in Ricardi-Smirin, Internet
[blitz] 2000) 9 ... d5 10 .ta3 eS 1 1 l2Jb3 "fic7
was prematurely agreed drawn in Stean­
Gheorghiu, Teeside 1 975 with White having
good compensation for the minus pawn.
b) 5 f4 gives Black a number of ways to
play. He can continue in hedgehog fashion
with 5 ... d6, while both S ... .tcS and S ... dS!? 6
eS l2Jc6 seem reasonable.
1 82
I
c) 5 g3 dS! is a good equaliser:
c1) The endgames that arise after 6 l2Jc3
dxe4 7 l2Jxe4 eS 8 l2Jb3 "fixd 1 + 9 'it'xd 1
l2Jc6, 6 exdS "fixdS! 7 l2Jf3 "fixd 1 + 8 'it'xd 1
l2Jc6 and 6 i.g2 dxe4 7 i.xe4 l2Jf6 8 .tg2
eS 9 l2Jb3 "fixd1 + 1 0 'it'xd1 l2Jc6 all look
very comfortable for Black.
c2) 6 l2Jf3 l2Jf6 7 exdS "fixdS (7 ... exdS is
also playable) 8 "fixd5 l2Jxd5 9 .tg2 l2Jc6 1 0
0-0 i. e7 1 1 c 3 f6 1 2 l2Jbd2 'it' f7 1 3 l2Jc4
.td7 14 :d1 .l:.ad8 was equal in Mosquera­
Zapata, Cali 200 1 .
c3) 6 e S l2Jc6 7 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 i.g2 "fic7
looks fine for Black. In the game Dovliatov­
Macieja, Batumi 2002, White tried the
speculative sacrifice 9 0-0?! but following
9 ... "fixe5 1 0 c4 lDf6 1 1 l2Jc3 "fic7 1 2 :e1
.te7 13 .tf4 "fid8 14 "fia4 .td7 15 :ad1
0-0 he had little to show for his pawn.
d) 5 l2Jd2 "fic7 6 .td3 l2Jf6 7 0-0 trans­
poses to note 'c' to White's 7th move in
Game 19.
e) 5 .te3 will also usually transpose to
lines discussed earlier. For example 5 ... l2Jf6
6 .td3 'ifc7 7 0-0 transposes to note 'd' to
White's 7th move in Game 19.
5 lDf6
. . .
5 ... g6 is less effective against 5 c4 than
against 5 i.d3 as White's light-squared
bishop doesn't block the d-file. Conse-

quently Black will be under more pressure
down this ftle. 6 lLlc3 .ig7 7 .ie3 lbe7 8
i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 'ii'd2 'ii'c 7 1 1 l:tfd1
gave White a pleasant advantage in Estrin­
Siklos, correspondence 1 97 5.
6 lL'lc3
6 i.d3 is met in typical fashion by
6 ... lLlc6! and now:
a) 7 lLlxc6 dxc6! is comfortable for Black.
8 i.f4!? lbd7 9 lLlc3 e5 10 .ie3 .ic5 was
level in I.Polgar-Portisch, Hungary 1 97 1 .
b) 7 .ie3 lLle5!? 8 0-0 lLlfg4!? (8 ... 'ii'c7
transposes to Game 1 7) 9 .ict i.c5 10 .ie2
'ii'f6 (10 ... lLlxf2!? 1 1 lhf2 'ii'b6 12 i.e3 lbc6
1 3 .ih5 g6 14 'i'f3! was better for White in
Galow-Matt, correspondence 1 995) 1 1
i.xg4 i.xd4 looks reasonabl� for Black.
6 i.b4
. . .
This is the move Black tries if he doesn't
wish to play a Hedgehog. The main alterna­
tive is 6 ... 'ii'c 7, after which White has three
main choices:
a) 7 .ie2, preparing to castle but allowing
... .ib4, is studied in Game 75.
b) 7 a3, preventing the pin with ... i.b4, is
dealt with in Game 74.
c) 7 .id3 bolsters the e-pawn, but leaves
the knight on d4 undefended. After the
typical 7 ... lLlc6! White has the following
possibilities:
a) 8 l2Jf3 b6 9 0-0 l2Jg4 transposes to
note 'c' to White's 8th move in Game 1 7.
b) 8 lLlxc6 dxc6 9 0-0 e5 transposes to
5 c4
the note to White's 9th move i n Game 1 6.
c) 8 .ie3 lLle5 9 h3 (9 'ii'e2?! lLlfg4!)
9 ... b6 10 l:tct i.b7 1 1 0-0 transposes to the
note to White's l Oth move in Game 17.
d) 8 lLlde2 .ic5 9 0-0 lLle5 1 0 h3 d6 1 1
.ig5 lLlfd7 1 2 l:tct (Chiburdanidze-Suetin,
Moscow 1 981) 12 ... lLlxd3 1 3 'ii'xd3 lbe5 is
equal according to Suetin.
7 .i.d3
Alternatively:
a) 7 e5 promises little: 7 ... lLle4 8 'ii'g4
lLlxc3 9 a3 i.f8 1 0 bxc3 d6 1 1 exd6 e5! 1 2
lLlf5 g6 1 3 'ii'g3 lLlc6 1 4 lLle3 ( 1 4 lLlh6?!
'ii'xd6 15 .ie2 f5 16 .ig5 .ie7 17 0-0 .ixg5
18 'iixg5 'iWe7 19 h4 'ii'xg5 20 hxg5 .ie6 left
White's knight doing very little on h6 in
Van der Wiel-Cacho Reigadas, Linares 1 995)
14 ... 'ii'xd6 1 5 i.e2 f5 1 6 lbd5 .ie6 left
Black comfortably placed in Campora­
Motwani, Manila Olympiad 1 992.
b) 7 .id2 0-0 8 e5 .ixc3 9 .ixc3 lbe4
and now:
b1) 10 'ii'c2 d5 1 1 exd6 lLlxc3 12 'ii'xc3
'ii'xd6 1 3 0-0-0 'ii'f4+ 1 4 'ii'e3 'ii'x e3+ 1 5
fxe3 e5 1 6 lLl f3 lLlc6 was level in Kavalek­
Portisch, Halle 1 963.
b2) 10 .ib4 d6 1 1 'ii'e 2 'ii'b6 12 lLlc2
lbc6 13 a3 d5 14 f3 lbc5 1 5 'ii'e 3 d4! 1 6
lLlxd4 lLlxb4 1 7 axb4 'ii'x b4+ and Black had
equalised in Korchnoi-Furman, Leningrad
1 957.
7 lbc6
. . .
Again a characteristic reaction to White's
1 83
 Sicilian Kan

i.d3. White now has various choices: i.f6 �xe4 21 fxe4 l:f.g6 22 eS 'ii'c 6 and
a) 8 lt:Jxc6 is the subject of Game 72. White didn't have enough compensation for
b) 8 �c2 is studied in Game 73. the material disadvantage in Velimirovic-
c) 8 lt:Jc2!? i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 dS! 1 0 exdS Rublevsky, Novi Sad 2000.
exdS 1 1 �a3 �e6 1 2 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 1 3 0-0 0-0-0 b) 1 4 i.b2 'ii'e 7! (14 ... eS 1 S :e1 0-0 1 6
1 4 cS l:the8 was unclear i n Oppenrieder- :xeS gave White good compensation in
O.Moiseev, correspondence 1 9S7. Velimirovic-Pikula, Yugoslav Ch. 1 996) 1 S
d) 8 lt:Jde2 'ii'c 7 9 0-0 lt:JeS 1 0 h3 (Ehl- i.xg7 l%g8 1 6 �c3 f6 1 7 f4 �d7 1 8 'ii'b 2
vest-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999) and now Bo- 'iii> f7 19 'ii'xb7 l%ab8 20 'ii'a7 cS and Black
logan gives 10 ... 0-0 1 1 f4 lt:Jxd3 12 'ii'xd3 d6 was better, Janssen-Quinteros, Baden-
1 3 a3 �cS+ 14 'iii> h 1 i.d7 as equal. Baden 1 985.
1 2 . . .'ifxd3 1 3 fxg7 l:l.g8 14 ..th6 'ifc3 +
Game 72 1 5 'iirf 1 'iff6
Drygalski-Filutowski 1 S ...'ii'xc4+ nets another pawn, but in-
Co"espondence 1 995 stead Black correcdy addresses more press-
.________________. ing issues, like the dark-squared weaknesses
1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 a6 around his king.
5 c4 lbf6 6 lbc3 ..ib4 7 .i.d3 lbc6 8 1 6 'ifc1 e5 1 7 l:l.b 1 ! ? ..ie6! ?
lbxc6 dxc6 9 e5 Stirring up more complications by allow-
The sharpest move, after which there is a ing the b7-pawn to drop. Black can keep his
mass of complications. In contrast, 9 0-0 eS pawn with 17 ...bS, for example 18 cxbS
leads to a dull equality. axbS 1 9 .l:tb2 �fS 20 h4 :a4 21 'iii>g 1 _:g4
9 . . . 'ifd4 22 l:td2 �e4 23 'ii'a3 'ii'xh6 24 'ii'a 8+ 'iii>e7
9 ... 'ii'a S leads to exactly the same thing. 2S 'ii'a 7+ 'iii> f6 26 .l:td6+ 'iii>xg7 27 :xh6
1 0 exf6 ..ixc3 + 1 1 bxc3 'ifxc3 + 'iii>x h6 28 'ii'e 3+ 'iii>h S 29 f3 :xg2+ 30 'iii> fl
.idS 31 'ii'x eS+ 'iifh6 32 'ii' f4+ 'iifhS 33
'ii' fS + 'iii>h6 with a draw by perpetual check,
Lonoff-S.Wolff, correspondence 1 987.

1 2 ..id2
The Yugoslav GM Velimirovic has tried
1 2 'ii'd 2!? on more than one occasion. After
1 2... 'ii'xa 1 1 3 0-0 (13 fxg7 'ii'xg7 1 4 0-0 eS
1S f4 �g4 16 �b2 0-0-0 is good for Black ­
Tal) 1 3 . .. 'ii'x f6 we have:
a) 1 4 �a3 �d7 1 S l:tb1 cS! 1 6 �e4 'ii'e S
17 f3 �c6 1 8 �b2 'ii'c 7 1 9 �xg7 l:tg8 20
1 8 l:l.xb7 0-0-0 1 9 l:l.b6
1 9 lta7!? 'ii'h4 20 .l:ta8+ 'iitc 7 21 :xd8
l:t.xd8 was very messy in the game Oech­
slein-Bernardt, correspondence 1 986. White
has the dangerous passed pawn on g7 but

1 84

but the rook on h 1 has yet to enter the
game.
1 9 . . J�d4
Van der Tak gives the intriguing line
1 9 ... .th3 20 gxh3 (20 .U.xa6? 'ii'f3!) 20 ... 'ii' f3
21 .l:tg1 .t'td l + 22 'ii'xd 1 'ii'x dl + 23 �g2
'ii'd 6 24 l:lgb1 'ii'g 6+ 25 �fl 'ii'd 3+ with a
draw by perpetual check, but perhaps Black
can play for the win with 24 ... �d7!?, aiming
to cross over to the kingside.
20 .:.xc6 + 'iti>b7 21 :c5 'ii'd 8 22 'iti>e2
22 �e 1 ? 'ii'd6! 23 'ii'b 1 + �a8 24 l:ta5
l:td8 wins for Black - Van der Tak.
22 . . .'ii'b 6
Now 22 ... 'ii'd 6? is answered by 23 'ii'b 2+
�a8 24 .U.b 1 !.
23 'ii'a 3 ..txc4 + 24 :xc4 :xc4 25
'ii'f3 + 'iti>b8 26 'it'xf7 l:tc2 + 27 ..td2
'ii'b 5 + 28 �e3
28 . . .'ii'b 6 +
Black settles for the draw, a wise move as
28 ... l:td8?! 29 �f3! 'ii'c 6+ 30 �g3 'ii'g6+ 3 1
'ii'xg6 hxg6 32 .t'tb 1 + �c8 3 3 ..1g5 (Van der
Tak) only gives White winning chances.
29 �e2 'ii'b 5 + 30 'ite3 'ii'b6 + 3 1 'iti>e2
%-%
..-----
Game 73
Kruger-Silva Filho
Comspondence 1 998
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 ..tb4 7 ..td3 lLlc6 8 ..tc2
5 c4
'ii'c 7
8 ...l2Je5 9 0-0! lLlxc4 10 'ii'e2 l2Je5 1 1
�h1 d6 1 2 f4 lLlg6 1 3 f5 gives White a
strong attack for the pawn. Mestel­
Shamkovich, Hastings 1 977/78 continued
1 3 ... l2Je5 14 .ia4+! b5 1 5 .ixb5+! axb5 1 6
'ii'x b5+ 'iid7 1 7 'ii'xb4 and i t was White
who had the extra pawn.
9 0-0
9 . . .lLlxd4
Also interesting is the line 9 ... 0-0 1 0
� h1 !? lLlxd4 1 1 'ii'xd4 l2Jg4 1 2 f4! and now:
a) 12 ... b5 1 3 'ii'd 1 ! .txc3 (13. .. l2Jf6?! 1 4
e 5 lLle8 1 5 lLle4 was good for White in
Mestel-Portisch, London 1 982) 14 bxc3
'ii'xc4 (Mestel) when I would prefer White's
two bishops and attacking chances on the
kingside to Black's extra pawn.
b) 12 ... .tc5 13 'ii'd 3!? lLJ£2+ 1 4 l:tx£2
.tx f2 1 5 e5 g6 16 lLle4 .th4 17 .td2 b5!
and now:
b1) 1 8 l2Jf6+?! ..1xf6 1 9 exf6 (Mestel­
Miles, British Ch. 1 979) 19 ... 'ii'xc4 20 'ii'h 3
�h8 and Black defends.
b2) 1 8 'ii'h 3! with a further split:
b21) 18 ... 'ii'd 8 19 i.c3 .tb7 20 lLlf6+
.txf6 21 exf6 h5 (21 ...�h8 22 .txg6! - Ca-
brilo) 22 'ii'g3 �h7 23 .U.e1 d6 24 'ii'g5 .U.h8
25 .U.xe6 wins for White.
b22) 1 8 ... .te7 1 9 ..1b4!.
b23) 18 .. .f5! is the best defence: 19 .tb4
l:tf7 20 'ii'xh4 fxe4 21 ..1xe4 is unclear.
1 0 'ii'xd4 lLlg4 1 1 e5 lLlxe5 1 2 lLle4
1 85
Sicilian Kan
1 2 . . . b6
The other way to defend the knight is
with 1 2... d6.
a) 13 f4 'ir'xc4 14 ..ie3 'ir'xd4 15 ..ixd4
dS? (Black should try 1 5 .. .'�Jg4!) 1 6 fxeS
dxe4 17 J.xe4 0-0 1 8 l:tacl was clearly bet­
ter for White in Hector-Paramos Domin­
guez, La Coruna 1 995.
b) 13 J.f4 f6 (or 13. ..b6? 1 4 a3 J.cS 1 5
'ir'c3 f5 1 6 J.a4+! 'itJf8 17 lLlxcS bxcS 1 8
l:tad1 lLlf7 1 9 J.xd6+! lLlxd6 20 'ir'eS 'itJ f7
21 .l:.xd6 'WaS 22 J.d7 1 -0 Chiburdanidze­
Fischdick, Belgrade 1 979) 14 a3 ..icS 1 5
lLlxcS 'ir'xcS 1 6 'ir'xcS dxcS 1 7 J.xeS fxeS 1 8
.l:.fe 1 J.d7 1 9 .l:.xeS with a slight plus for
White due to Black's isolated e6-pawn, Ma­
ciejewski-Jaracz, Mikolajki 1 991 .
1 3 f4 'i'xc4 1 4 i.e3!
This is an attempted improvement over
the older 14 'ir'xeS 'ir'xc2 1 5 'ir'xg7 'ir'xe4 1 6
1 86
'ir'xh8+ 'itJe7 1 7 'ir'g7 'ir'e2 1 8 'ir'gS+ 'itJe8
1 9 'ir'g8+ 1/z- 1/z Mestel-Liberzon, Hastings
1 980/81 .
1 4 . . . .tb7?
This allows a nasty trick. The position is
still quite unclear after 1 4... 'ir'xd4! 15 ..ixd4
lLlg4.
1 5 fxe5 'i'xc2
1 6 �xf7! ! i.d5
16 ... 'itJxf7 loses to 17 'ir'xd7+ J.e7 1 8
.l:.fl + and Black i s getting mated.
1 7 'i'xb4 �xf7 1 8 .l:!.f 1 + �g8 1 9 'i'e7
'i'xg2 +
1 9 ... h6 allows mate after 20 'ir'f7+ 'itJh7
21 lLlf6. It's really time to resign now!
20 �xg2 i.xe4 + 2 1 �g 1 i.g6 22 'i'xd7
h6 23 'i'xe6 + �h7 24 'i'xb6 1 -0
Game 74
Krnic-Taimanov
Vrnjacka Batya 1 974
1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6
5 c4 lt:\f6 6 lt:\c3 'i'c7 7 a3
By playing an early a2-a3 White rules out
the possibility of ...J.b4 and thus restricts
Black's opportunities to complicate early
on. Black usually falls back on the hedgehog
structure in the knowledge that White has
'wasted' a tempo. However, often the pawn
on a3 actually serves a purpose as White
later expands on the queenside (see Kas­
parov-Kramnik below).

7 . . . b6! ?
Refusing for the moment to close the
bishop in with ... d7 -d6 and thus keeping
some options open. Black's other choices
include:
a) 7 . ..lDc6 S .ie3 .ie7 9 l:tct 0-0 (9... lt:\e5
10 .ie2 lt:\g6 1 1 0-0 b6 12 f4 0-0 1 3 b4 was
better for White in Torre-Karpov, Bad Lau­
terberg 1 977) 10 .ie2 lt:\xd4! 1 1 'ii'xd4 d6
1 2 0-0 l:tbS 1 3 'ii'b6 'ii'xb6 14 .ixb6 .id7
1 5 l:tfd 1 :res 16 b4 .ieS 17 .ia7 l:taS 1 S
.ie3 lt:\d7 1 9 lt:\a4 l:tc6 20 f3 � f8 21 �£2
and White had a minuscule edge in Kas­
parov-Ivanchuk, Linares 2002.
b) 7 ... d6 S .ie3 b6 9 l:tct liJbd7 10 .ie2
.ib7 1 1 f3 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 �h1 l:tacS
reaches a typical Hedgehog position. Kas­
parov-Kramnik, Moscow 2001 continued
14 b4 'ii'b S 1 5 'ii'd2 .idS 16 l:tc2 l:teS (Stohl
suggests 1 6 ... .ic7 1 7 .ig1 �hS with the
ambitious idea of ... :gs and a possible ... g7-
g5; it was Fischer who introduced this plan)
1 7 lt:\a4 .ic7 (preparing ... d6-d5) 1 S .ig1 !
and White's space o n the queenside gives
him slightly better chances.
c) 7 ... lt:\xe4!? seems impossible at first
but Black acrually does win back the piece.
However, following S lt:\xe4 (S lt:\xe6 dxe6 9
lt:\xe4 .ie7 1 0 .id3 0-0 1 1 0-0 is probably
slightly better for White) S... 'ii'e 5 9 .id3! (9
f3 d5!) 9 ...'ii'xd4 1 0 0-0 lt:\c6 1 1 .ie3 'ii'e 5
12 f4! 'ii'c 7 13 f5 (Watanabe-Braga, Brazil
1 991) White has a very strong initiative and
5 c4
it would take a very brave player to play this
as Black.
8 ..td3
S .ie3!? is the other main move. Follow­
ing S ... .ib7 9 f3 .ie7 1 0 .ie2 0-0 1 1 l:tct
we transpose to the note to Black's 7th
move in Game 75.
8 . . . ..tb7 9 0-0 lt'lc6! ?
A s well a s this move, Black could try
9 ... .ic5, intending 10 liJb3 .ie7, or 9 ....ie7,
for example 10 'ii'e2 d6 1 1 f4 0-0 leads to
positions similar to ones already discussed
except that White has played the not very
useful a2-a3.
1 0 lt'lxc6
10 .ie3?! lt:\e5! gives Black good coun­
terplay.
1 0 . . . 1fxc6
In this particular instance Black recap­
rures with the queen rather than the d-pawn
so as to keep the long diagonal open.
1 1 1fe2 ..te7 1 2 f4
1 2 . . . ..tc5 + !
1 2... d6?! 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 lt:\d7 1 5 .ie4
'ii'c 7 16 .ixb7 'ii'xb7 1 7 'ii'g4 (Taimanov)
offers White dangerous attacking possibili­
ties on the kingside.
1 3 'it>h1 ..td4
Adding pressure on the vulnerable e4-
pawn. Now White should play 1 4 lt:\d5!.
1 4 e5?! ..txc3 1 5 bxc3 lt'le4 1 6 ..txe4
1fxe4 1 7 1fxe4 ..txe4
Black's excellent bishop and supenor
187
Sicilian Ka n
pawn structure guarantees an edge, although
in the end this was not enough to win the
game.
1 8 .te3 l:lc8 1 9 .txb6 l:lxc4 20 .ta5 g5
21 'iii>g 1 l:lg8 22 g3 gxf4 23 l:lxf4 l:.g5
24 l:.b1 .l:.xe5 25 l:.b8 + <k;e7 26 i.b4 +
d6 27 l:lb6 .l:US 28 .l:.xf5 exf5 29 lba6
I:!.c6 30 l:.a7 + �e6 31 'iii>f2 i.d5 32 a4
I:!.c4 Y:z - Y2
Game 75
I .Aimasi-Portisch
Hungary 1 995
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6
5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 "ikc7 7 .te2 .tb4
Black accepts the invitation to pin the
knight. Another interesting possibility here
is 7 ... b6 S i.e3 .ib7 9 f3 .ie7 1 0 l:tc1 and
now:
a) 1 0 ... d6 accepts the hedgehog forma­
tion. Typical play would now be 1 1 0-0
lLlbd7 12 lid2 0-0 1 3 I:.fd1 I:.acS 14 i.fl
libS 1 5 li£2 .idS! (on c7 the bishop pro­
tects both b6 and d6 and there's the possi­
bility of ... d6-d5, uncovering an attack on
h2) 1 6 �h1 .ic7 1 7 lL:lde2 �hS! 1 S .id4
.ic6 19 .ie3?! (White should be doing
something positive on the queenside)
19 ... lLleS 20 b3 (Bezgodov-Loskutov, Omsk
1 996) and now Black should proceed with
20 ... l:.gS!, intending ... g7-g5 and ...l:tg6.
b) 1 0...0-0!?
1 88
with a further split:
b1) 1 1 0-0?! .id6! and now White's best is
to allow a perpetual with 12 g3 .ixg3 1 3
hxg3 lixg3+ a s both 1 2 h3? .ih2+ 1 3 �h1
lLlhS and 12 �h 1 .ixh2 13 f4 .ig3 14 l:tf3
lLlhS are unappetising.
b2) 1 1 �£2?! (this looks a little too artifi­
cial) 1 1 ...l:%.dS! 1 2 g4?! (1 2 lib3 is stronger)
1 2... lL:lc6 1 3 lLlxc6 dxc6 1 4 ligl cS and
Black was better in Van der Wiel-Bischoff,
Baden-Baden 1 992.
b3) I like the move 1 1 a3!, preventing any
possible ... .ib4 checks and preparing lL:la4.
Now 1 1 ... d6 would reach a typical Hedge-
hog, while 1 1 ...l:tdS 1 2 lL:la4! d6 1 3 lLlbS!
axbS 14 cxbS lid7 1 5 lLlxb6 lieS 16 l::.c 7!
l:ta7 17 lL:lc4 dS 1S .ixa7 dxc4 19 lia4 is
better for White.
8 lLlc2
Immediately asking the question of the
bishop. An alternative is S 0-0 i.xc3 9 bxc3
and now:
a) 9 ... lLlxe4 10 i.d3! lL:lcS 1 1 l:te1 �f8
(1 1 ...d6 12 lLlfS! 0-0 1 3 lLlxd6!) 12 lL:lb3
gives White tremendous play for the pawn,
Kapetanovic-Petronic, Yugoslavia 1 991 .
b) 9 ... d6! 1 0 .ia3!? lLlxe4 1 1 .if3 lL:lcS 1 2
'i'd2 lLlbd7 1 3 ligS 0-0 1 4 lie7! l:ta7 1 5
l:.ad1 b6 1 6 lL:lc6 lL:leS 1 7 lixd6 lLlxf3+ 1 S
gxf3 lixd6 1 9 l:.xd6 l:tc7 was unclear in
Hector-Spassov, Chartres 1 990.
8 . . . .te7
Black decides to employ the Hedgehog
after all! The main alternative is to capture
on c3 with S ... .ixc3+ 9 bxc3 and here Black
has a choice:
a) 9 ... lLlxe4?! 10 lid4 lLlf6 1 1 .if4 'i'aS
1 2 .id6 gives White total domination of the
dark squares.
b) 9 ... lLlc6 10 lid3 0-0 1 1 .ia3 looks
good for White, for example 1 t ...l:tdS 1 2
.id6 liaS 1 3 lLlb4 lLleS 1 4 0-0 lLlxd6 1 5
lixd6 lia3 1 6 e S lixc3 1 7 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 S
l:tab 1 and Black has trouble developing his
remaining pieces, Wollmann-Barten, corre­
spondence 1 994.

c) 9 ... d6!? 10 .ia3 lt:\xe4 1 1 'ii'd 4 f5 1 2
.ih5+ �f8 1 3 .l:td 1 lt:\c6 1 4 'ii'e 3 lt:\a5 1 5
'ii'xe4 fxe4 1 6 .ixd6+ 'ii'xd6 1 7 .l:txd6 �e7
18 �d4 b6 19 �xe4 .ib7 20 �e2 lt:\xc4 21
lt:Jd4 e5 22 i.f3 .ixf3 23 lLlxf3 �f6 24 lt:\d2
lt:Jxd2 25 �xd2 l:tac8 26 �b 1 fizzled out
into a draw in Bryson-Motwani, Aberdeen
200 1 , but Black must be very brave to take
on these dark-squared weaknesses.
9 0-0 d6 1 0 i.e3 b6 1 1 f3 tt:lbd7 1 2
'i!i'e 1 .i.b7 1 3 'i!i'f2
13 �d 1 is more accurate.
1 3 . . . 0-0
Almasi gives 1 3 ... d5! as equalising imme­
diately, for example 1 4 exd5 exd5 1 5 cxd5
lt:\xd5 16 lt:\xd5 .ixd5 17 lt:Jd4 0-0 18 lt:Jf5
i.f6.
14 g4? !
White should play 14 �ad1 with the in­
tention of doubling on the d-ftle and thus
making it impossible for Black to break with
... d6-d5.
1 4 . . . g6!?
Now 1 4...d5? is answered by 15 g5!, the
point of White's 1 4th move.
1 5 i.h6?
5 c4
Enticing, but with White's king and
queen on the same diagonal, White should
have smelt the trouble brewing.
1 5 . . . d5!!
A brilliant exchange sacrifice which re­
futes White's earlier play. Black will be able
to feast on the self-inflicted weakness on
White's kingside.
1 6 i.xts :xts 1 1 'i!i'g2
Almasi gives the following possibilities,
all of which lead to a clear advantage for
Black.
a) 17 �h 1 dxe4 1 8 fxe4 lt:\e5!.
b) 1 7 cxd5 .ic5 1 8 lt:\e3 'ii' f4 1 9 lt:Jcdl
exd5.
c) 17 exd5 .ic5 1 8 lt:\e3 'ii' f4 19 lt:Jcd 1
exd5.
1 7 . . . dxc4 1 8 f4 h6 1 9 h4?
19 g5 is more resilient. Now White's po­
sition begins to crumble.
1 9 . . . b5! 20 g5 hxg5 21 hxg5 .i.c5 + ! 22
�h 1 b4! 23 gxf6 bxc3 24 i.f3 'i!i'xf4 25
bxc3 tt:lxf6 26 e5 tt:le4 27 'ili'h2 lLlf2 +
0-1
1 89
Sicilian Ka n

Summary
If Black really wishes to avoid playing the Hedgehog here then 6 i.b4 is the way forward,
...

but Games 72-73 show that this leads to incredibly sharp positions. After 6 ..1r'c7 I prefer 7
.

a3 to 7 i.e2 and 7 i.d3. The note to Black's 8th move in Game 74 shows that it is then
difficult for Black to avoid playing anything but a Hedgehog. Of course, this is certainly not
a bad thing, otherwise the Kan would be unplayable!

1 e4 c5 2 lt:\fJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6 5 c4 lt:\f6 6 lt:\cJ i.b4

6 1r'c7
...

7 i.e2 (D) - Game 75

7 a3 - Game 74
7 i.dJ lt:\c6 (D) 8 lt:\xc6 - Game 72
8 i.c2 (D) - Game 73

7 i.e2 8 i.c2

1 90
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I

Acs-Fancsy, Zalakaros 1991 ............................. ...................................................................... 137

Adams-Kobalija, FIDE World Ch., Lu Vegas 1999 ............................................................. 24
Almasi.I-Portisch, Hungary 1995........ .................................................................................. 188
Almasi.Z-Anand, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997 ............................................................. 17
Almasi.Z-Farago, Linz 1995................................................................................................... 14
Almasi.Z-Stangl, Altensteig 1994 ............................................................................................. 88
Anka-Nijboer, Dieren 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..... 1 13
Antal-Szilagyi, Budapest 200 1 ................................................................................................ 163
Antoniewski-Berzinsh, Prerov 200 1 ..................................................................................... 158
Aseev-Kochyev, Leningrad 1984 .............................................................................................. 53
Barash-Batakovs, Comspondence 1983 .................................................................................. 144
Beliavsky-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1981 ....................................................................................... 16
Berthelot-Velikov, Trignac 200 1 ....................................................................... ....................... 98
Blehm-Gajewski, Polish Championship 200 1 ......................................................................... 161
Borngaesser-Lau, Essen 1996 ................................................................................................. 29
Csoke-Lehoczki, Hungarian League 1998 ............................................................................... 38
Dix-Edwards, Comspondence 1993 .......................................................................................... 19
Docx-Van der Linden, Belgian League 1996 ........................................................................ 149
Drygalski-Filutowski, Comspondence 1995.......................................................................... 184
Goloshchapov-Kobalija, Ekaterinburg 1999........................................................................ 132
Golubev-Moroz, Donetsk 1998 .............................................................................................. 108
Grischuk-Smirin, FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000 .......................................................... 169
Haba-Poluj ahov, Swidnica 2000 ............................................................................................ 160
Hall-Hells ten, Limhamn 1998 ................................................ .......... ....................................... 54
Hanoman-Hellsten, Stockholm 1996 ........................ ...................................... ...................... 139
Hellers-Gheorghiu, Haifa 1989.............................................................................................. 19
Herschel-Fiensch, Comspondence 1979 .................................................................................. 92
Hjartarson-Bezold, Bermuda 1997.......................................................................................... 87
Horvath.J-Farago, Budapest 1987 ........................................................................................... 96
Jamieson-Adamski, Nice O!Jmpiad 1974 ............................................................................. 1 1 8

191
Sicilian Ka n

Johnson-West, Comspondence 1997 ......................................................................................... 27

Kengis-Nevednichy.B, USSR 1979 ...................................................................................... 93
Khalifman-Rublevsky, Kazan 200 1 ....................................................................................... 66
Koch.C-Fanghui Feng, Comspondence 2000 ......................................................................... 56
Krnic-Taimanov, Vrnjacka Ba'!Ja 1974 ................................................................................ 186
Kruger-Silva Filho, Comspondence 1998 ............................................................................... 185
Lastin-Rublevsky, Moscow (bliti) 200 1 ................................................................................... 64
Lutz-Milov, European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 .......................................................................... 104
Magomedov-Khouseinov, Dushanbe 1999 ........................................................................... 48
Midoux-Eingom, Metz 2000 ................................................................................................ 147
Moberg-Agrest, Swedish Team Championship 200 1 ............................................................... 102
Motylev-Ye Jiangchuan, Shanghai 200 1 .............................................................................. 1 16
Nagatz-Dautov, Bad Lluterberg 199 1 ................................................................................... 135
Niggemann-Pfrommer, Comspondence 1998 ........................................................................ 84
Nunn-Khurtsidze, World Team Ch., l.JJcerne 1997............................................................... 122
Parma-Capelan, Solingen 1968................................................................................................. 90
Pikula-Cvitan, Bie/ 1996 ............................................. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Plachetka-Ravikumar, Politiken Cup, Copenhagen 1980 ........................................................ 37
Polgar.J-Miezis, Tallinn, 200 1 ............................................................................................... 120
Sandor-Chemuschevich, Poznan 1995.................................................................................. 40
Sax-Fogarasi, Hungarian League 1997 ................................................................................... 126
Schlosser-Vyzmanavin, Sochi 1989........................................................................................ 4 2
Shaposhnikov-Karttunen, Athens 200 1 ................................................................................ 22
Shirov-Agrest, European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 ...................................................................... 100
Shirov-Komeev, Spain 1998..................................................................................................... 99
Shirov-Rublevsky, Montecatini Terme 2000 ............................................................................. 68
Shmuter-Maryasin, Israeli Team Championship 1999 ........................................................... 165
Short-Sax, Amsterdam 1983 ...................................................................................................... 3 1
Smirin-Goldin, Philadelphia 1998............................................................................................. 5 1
Stisis-Oratovsky, Tel Aviv (rapid) 1996................................................................................. 1 15
Sulskis-Eingom, Koszalin 1999 ............................................................................................. 124
Svidler-Milov, Biel, 2000 ........................................................................................................ 1 75
Thiel-Chuchelov, Munster 1995 ............................................................................................ 1 77
Timman-Kengis, Yerevan Ofympiad 1996 ............................................................................... 70
Tiviakov-Milov, Groningen 1998 ............................................................................................ 145
Tolnai-Sjoberg, Zalakaros 1992 ............................................................................................ 153
Torres-Smirin, New York 1998 ............................................................................................. 105
Trapl-Tompa, Decin 1977 ........................................................................................................ 32
Ulibin-Milov, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999 ....................................................................................... 61
Vogt-Gheorghiu, Hamburg 1984 ............................................................................................. 72
Vujanovic-Verdier, Comspondence 2000 ................................................................................. 46
Waitzkin-Gurevich.I, New York 1 994 ................................................................................. 151
Watson.W-Mortensen, Heming 199 1 ................................................................................... 1 77
Widenmann-Andersen, Comspondence 1985 ....................................................................... 142
Wydrowski-Panter, Comspondence 1996............................................................................... 125

1 92